Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (EXMOUTH) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an Order to authorise the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board to acquire additional lands and to construct further works, to confer further powers on the said Board, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in any advance by way of loan made by the Secretary of State under the Order confirmed by the Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1958.

Resolution agreed to.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL

Order for Consideration read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

Question amended, by leaving out the words "now considered" and adding the words "committed to a Committee of the whole House"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—instead thereof, and as amended, agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Birmingham-Bristol Motorway (Dorset and South Somerset)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will revise the general line of the projected motorway to link the Birmingham. Bristol motorway to Exeter and the West, in such a way that it passes to the south of Bristol instead of to the north, in order that Dorset and south Somerset may derive some benefit from it.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): The line of the route for the southern section of the Birmingham-Bristol motorway from Twyning to East Brent is still being investigated by consulting engineers. It is too early for me to say what my proposals will be.

Mr. Digby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to look again very carefully at this before he decides to run the motorway with the sea on one side, in view of the large area to the south in Dorset and south Somerset where we have had very little share of modern motoring facilities?

Mr. Marples: I will look at that, but so far the indications are that a by-pass to the north of Bristol will have advantages over a by-pass to the south-east of the city, but I am bound to say that further investigation is required but the point my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account.

Mr. McLaren: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this very important motorway should pass to the north of Bristol so as to provide modern road communications for the growing, progressing port of Avonmouth and for the new chemical works at Severnside?

Mr. Marples: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) will consult my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) to settle these matters between them and arrive at a considered decision and then let me know.

Durham Road, Stockton-on-Tees

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Transport what decision has been made to improve road safety on the unrestricted stretch of the Durham Road at Stockton-on-Tees.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): As the hon. Member now knows, we are prepared to agree to a 40 m.p.h. limit, subject to consideration of any objections which may be received when public notice of the proposal is given. I hope that this measure, in conjunction with the continuous guard railing already erected and a roundabout proposed for the near future at the Two Mile House junction, will effect an appreciable improvement in safety.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this decision will give great satisfaction to many people living in this area? Would he bear in mind the need possibly for another roundabout halfway down the stretch of the road?

Mr. Hay: I am glad to know that the hon. Member and his constituents will probably be satisfied with what we are doing. I will bear in mind the other point that the hon. Member made.

Road Signs

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in standardising road signs with those of other European countries.

Mr. Marples: Signs on motorways already mainly follow continental design. I am considering whether we should have a general review of signs on other roads. Such a review would naturally embrace the questions whether, and how far, we should adopt the continental system.

Mr. Hynd: I wonder how far Continental people would adopt our system. In view of the increasing number of people who are taking cars across the Channel in both directions, is it not desirable that a decision should be reached as soon as possible?

Mr. Marples: The motorway signs have been absolutely first-class. I think that everybody has approved of them. As that inquiry was so successful, I am considering seriously whether we should

have a similar inquiry into all our signs. At the moment I believe that there are too many signs, that they are not at all clear in some respects, and that they are not standard in some respects. Motorists should be able to find standard signs in any part of the country. It may well be that an inquiry will be held; I will go seriously into that matter.

Maidenhead By-pass

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport when the Maidenhead Motorway by-pass will be completely open; and if he will make a statement about the work of the surveyors, engineers and contractors responsible for the surface and grading of the section already open.

Mr. Hay: The Maidenhead by-pass will be fully open to traffic as a motorway on Monday, 26th June, 1961. I believe that the whole of this motorway, including the section now open, will be well up to the high standard of design and riding quality we have come to expect for motorways in this country. I should like to thank all concerned for their work on this project.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that it will be a great relief to holiday-makers going to the West when this motorway is opened? Having driven two or three times on parts of it, may I add my congratulations to the surveyors and engineers on the grading and surface?

Mr. Hay: I know the stretch of road very well myself because it is on the way to my constituency. I am delighted with what is being done.

M.1 (Leicestershire)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, although traffic has doubled on the M.1 and A.5 roads in Buckinghamshire, accidents have been reduced by 49 in one year; whether, in view of this and similar circumstances on other parts of these roads, he will press forward with the construction of the Leicestershire portion of the M.1 road; and if he will make a statement on progress relating to that portion of the M.1 road.

Mr. Hay: I agree with the hon. Member about the value of M.1 in reducing


accidents. Although the five major projects must continue to have priority, we are making progress with the statutory procedures for the next sections of M.1. The Side Roads Order for the section in Northamptonshire was published on 28th April, and for the Leicestershire section on 26th May, 1961. Orders for the remaining sections will be published as soon as possible.

Sir B. Janner: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "as soon as possible"? Is he aware that for the last seven years he or his predecessors have been pressed to get this road made and that at least £1 million a year have been lost as a result of it not having been made? What on earth is the hon. Gentleman delaying about now? Why does he not press ahead as quickly as he possibly can and get the road completed? Has he not the vision to understand what is necessary?

Mr. Hay: I have lost count of the number of times I have told the hon. Member that we cannot proceed in this matter any faster than the statutory processes laid down by Parliament will allow us. That is what we are doing, and we shall press on with that.

Cromwell Road (Clearway)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position with regard to his proposed establishment of a clearway on the Cromwell Road exit from London; and whether, when the necessary restrictions are decided on, they will be submitted to Parliament in the form of regulations.

Mr. Marples: After consultation with the local authorities and other local interests, I announced on 27th April the final form which this experiment will take. I hope to introduce it this August, by means of Regulations which will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While, obviously, in principle clearways are very desirable for through traffic, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that not only taxis but also private hire cars, particularly those going to London Airport and the Cromwell Road Air Terminal, must set down at the hotels along the Cromwell Road from time to time and, therefore, the Regulations must be reasonable in that respect?

Mr. Marples: I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that the Regulations are reasonable. I think that I managed to persuade the Kensington Chamber of Commerce, following its approach, that they were quite reasonable.

Roadside Verges (Upkeep)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Transport if he will revise and reissue Circular 718 of 1955 to highway authorities on the upkeep of roadside verges.

Mr. Hay: Amending Circular, No. 726, was issued in 1956. We have no evidence that there is need for further revision or for a reissue of these circulars, but if my hon. Friend has information showing that the advice given has been ignored, and will let me have details, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increasing evidence that a number of road engineers are unaware of the existence of this circular and are not abiding by it at all? Furthermore, is it not a good idea to have it brought up to date in view of the recent information which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has obtained in this connection?

Mr. Hay: I have no doubt that adequate publicity will be given to the Question and Answer in this House today on this point, and perhaps that will bring the matter to the notice of highway engineers, if that is necessary. I will look into the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Severn Bridge

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport when the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, can expect a reply to his letter of 22nd March about the supply of steel wire for the Severn Bridge.

Mr. Marples: I have written to the hon. Member on this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that suspicions have been caused because one of the firms of the consortium is one of the few firms which can supply this wire? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that because it is a member of the consortium the firm will not get an unnecessary advantage


over South Wales firms which equally could supply the same sort of wire and that the South Wales firms will have the same opportunity of tendering for it?

Mr. Marples: The responsibility for the design and construction must rest with the consulting engineers. They are paid for the job and it is their responsibility. However, I will certainly look at the point.

Aldgate-Blackwall Tunnel Road (Repairs)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Transport for what periods during the past three years portions of the road between Aldgate and Blackwall Tunnel have not been up for repair.

Mr. Hay: We do not contribute to the cost of these works and have no records which give this information. The highway authorities tell me that no repairs were undertaken in Poplar during this period. In Stepney repairs were in progress for 21½ months, but except for two months the area under excavation was normally restricted to one quarter of the carriageway width.

Mr. Pavitt: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that on the last occasion when the road was up, the method employed was that of having one man and a wheelbarrow and two men on their hands and knees with a trowel scraping it out? Is he sure that this is the quickest possible way to deal with it? Will he give consideration to having a twenty-four hour service where there is a bottleneck of this kind which impedes a very large amount of traffic coming into London?

Mr. Hay: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put all these points to the Stepney Borough Council which is entirely responsible in this matter. It is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to schoolchildren crossing the north-eastern end of Cathedral Road, Cardiff, where, despite a continuous stream of fast-moving traffic, there are

no traffic lights, no zebra crossing and no school traffic warden to see children across the road; and what steps he proposes to take to protect children who have to cross this main road.

Mr. Hay: Responsibility in this matter lies with the Cardiff County Borough Council as the highway authority. There are already three central islands in the road and traffic signals at its southern end. Traffic signals are to be installed at the Cardiff Road junction and I am advised that the council proposes that two more central islands should be provided. Provision of a school crossing patrol is a matter for the local education authority.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that this shuffling off of responsibility is not good enough? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It certainly is not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since this Question has been on the Order Paper there has been another accident at the spot, that people in the area are thoroughly frightened about the safety of their children and that the traffic lights to which he refers are three-quarters of a mile to a mile away from the spot to which the Question refers? Will he stir up the Cardiff authority on this question to ensure that children are given the protection of a traffic controller, as is so urgently necessary?

Mr. Hay: It is hard enough to be attacked for things for which we are responsible. It is a little harder to be attacked for things for which we have no responsibility at all. All I can say is that I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to the attention of the Cardiff County Borough Council.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the House being put in a rather difficult position? If the Minister has no responsibility he ought not to answer, and if he has a responsibility he ought not to disclaim it. What is the position? Is it not right that the House should know whether the Minister is accepting responsibility or not?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard what the Minister said. I cannot correct him if he is wrongly declining responsibility. I shall have to ascertain whether the Question is rightly on the Order Paper.

Mr. Mellish: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that it has been the custom of the House to ask Ministers Questions of this kind? Often the answer is that county councils and so on will have their attention called to the matter; but it has become the custom of the House for hon. Members to put Questions of this kind directly to Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the custom to put down a Question when no Ministerial responsibility is involved.

Mr. Popplewell: Is not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary misleading the House? Can a local authority establish a zebra crossing or anything else without the Minister's permission? Is it not a fact that before a local authority can establish a zebra crossing or anything that gives a right of way for pedestrians it must receive the consent of the Minister? Is not the Minister rather misleading the House when he says that he has no responsibility? In Newcastle we have made several requests to the Minister for this type of crossing, and the Minister simply refuses to allow us to do anything in Northumberland Street or anywhere else.

Mr. Thomas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Minister's Department has to be consulted on the question of road safety? If it has to be consulted, surely it must bear some responsibility for the advice which is given? Answer!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not command me to answer. He rose to a point of order.

Mr. Callaghan: Might I ask the Minister why the House of Commons every year agrees to a Vote on road safety if he disclaims responsibility for answering the Question?

Mr. Hay: With your permission and that of the House, Mr. Speaker; the position simply' is that that answer to the hon. Member was phrased in accordance with the question which was asked. He was trying to blame my right hon. Friend and his Department for inaction in this matter, and it was my purpose to point out that we have no direct responsibility, since Cardiff is its own highway authority. Our advice is often asked for, of course, and freely given.

Mr. Popplewell: On a point of order. I put a question to the Minister suggesting that he had responsibility. He has to give permission to local authorities before they can do anything.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) made an assertion, a fraction of which was in interrogatory form, but I am afraid that I lost it in the midst of the discussion.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is there not all the difference in the world between no responsibility and responsibility although indirect? If the Minister accepts indirect responsibility, he ought not to say that he is not responsible, for that is leaving the House in an impossible position.

Mr. Speaker: I never rule about Ministerial responsibility. What we do at the Table is take the declaration of the Minister about it. Hon. Members can take up the matter with the Minister at some time if they want to do so.

Mr. Thomas: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. It was not you I was seeking to put under pressure.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish the report of his inspector on his recent investigation into the danger to pedestrians and especially to school chlidren, who wish to cross the road at the junction of Lower Cathedral Road, Ninian Park Road and Clare Road, Cardiff; and whether he will make a statement on this report.

Mr. Hay: Both our divisional road engineer and the local safety officer have now made careful observations of the conditions at these junctions. They are agreed that the junctions do not present any special danger for school children or other pedestrians.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we shall remind him of those words in days to come?

Mr. Hay: I will remember.

Langley Road

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport to whom the contract has been let for the first part of the new Langley Road.

Mr. Marples: Tenders for this contract are still under consideration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister will be aware that one firm, which complained about the construction of the Chiswick Flyover, claims that it has been victimised since by the Minister. Will he not agree that at a time when his name is prominently displayed as part of the title of the firm undertaking a very big contract in this area—which is perhaps not altogether satisfactory—it is extremely important that it should be made abundantly clear that there is no truth whatever in these allegations—if there is no truth—and will he take steps to make certain that that is so when the contract is let?

Mr. Marples: Although my name is on the title of certain contractors doing the flyover, I have no interest in that firm. I am bound to say that on this viaduct we confined the tendering list to a selected list of firms considered to have the necessary experience. Therefore, every firm not on the list could say that it had been victimised. The firm to which the hon. Member referred has tendered for some jobs, the last as recently as this year. The contract for the Severn Bridge side structure was let at £1¾ million, while the firm tendered at just over £2¾ million, which is 65 per cent. higher. Its tenders have been far too high. There have been £100 million worth of tenders by public advertisement for which the firm has not considered it necessary to tender.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I think that you will agree that this is rather important, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman said that although his name appeared on some sign or other associated with this firm of contractors, he had nothing to do with it. Is it not somewhat improper that the right hon. Gentleman should still allow his name to remain there?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order. All kinds of considerations might arise, and I would not think of pronouncing about it.

Garage, Hayle Causeway

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Transport why he consented to a garage being erected on Hayle Causeway, with entry from, and exit to, the A.30 trunk

road, against the advice of the Cornwall Highways Committee

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend has power to direct refusal or restriction of planning permission for developments affecting trunk roads. Our divisional road engineer directed on behalf of my right hon. Friend that it should be a condition of any permission granted for a garage on Hayle Causeway that a garage in the same ownership causing obstruction and danger to traffic on A.30 in Hayle itself should be closed, because there was a balance of advantage in this course. I am unaware that the Cornwall Highways Committee gave any contrary advice.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this matter again, because permission has been given for the garage to be erected in a bird sanctuary, against the advice of the county planning committee as well as the highway authority? Is he aware that there is a good deal of distress about the fact that his Department should have given that authority before consulting the others?

Mr. Hay: I have looked into this case very carefully, in view of the local interest which it has caused. The precise position is that my right hon. Friend's responsibility in this matter extends not to questions of amenity or bird sanctuaries or anything of that kind, but simply to whether a proposed development will have an adverse effect on trunk road traffic. It is only within the context of that situation that our divisional road engineer took this decision.

Coventry Inner Ring Road

Mr. Hocking: asked the Minister of Transport on what date he gave approval to the Coventry Inner Ring Road scheme; what is the estimated cost thereof; and whether he will make a statement on the progress to-date.

Mr. Hay: Approval in principle was given in 1957. The cost is estimated at £4·2 million. The first section was opened to traffic in December 1959. The second section will probably be opened later this year. Land acquisition is proceeding on the third section, and preliminary discussions are taking place about the fourth section.

Mr. Hocking: Will my hon. Friend bring some pressure to bear on the local authority to try to persuade it to get on with this job a little more expeditiously, especially in view of the fact that the road is only 2¼ miles long in total?

Mr. Hay: That is a little hard on the Coventry City Council, which has done extremely well with this scheme and is pressing on with it as quickly as it can. We are also doing all we can to help. It is true that this is a comparatively short length of road, but it runs through a very large built-up area, and problems of land acquisition and accommodation works are acute.

Marlow Bridge

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the Marlow Urban District Council about the future of Marlow bridge; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay: The Marlow Urban District Council has asked us to receive a deputation on this matter. While, of course, we would be willing to do this, we feel that we should have an up-to-date assessment of the traffic in the area. We are, therefore, asking the Buckinghamshire and Berkshire County Councils to carry out a traffic survey at Marlow this summer, and it would seem preferable to defer the visit of a deputation until this has been completed.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is nearly three years since a limit of two tons was placed on the bridge, and it is even longer since it became known that the bridge is either to be reconstructed or replaced? Is it not extraordinary that only now have instructions been given for a traffic survey to be carried out? This is causing great inconvenience and difficulty to the residents of Marlow.

Mr. Hay: There are a great many views about this. My right hon. Friend is faced with the problem of whether to rebuild the existing bridge at a cost of £190,000 or whether it would be better to provide a completely new bridge at £215,000. There are a number of views about that. We must get the facts right first.

Mr. Hall: This has been before my hon. Friend's Department for a very time. Surely it should not take much longer before a decision is reached one way or another?

Mr. Hay: During that long time there has been a surprising lack of unanimity amongst local interests concerned about what ought to be done.

Motorways (Speed Limit)

Captain Litchfield: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce a speed limit on motorways.

Mr. Marples: Experience so far does not point to the need for a speed limit on motorways.

Captain Litchfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that motor cars capable of the highest speeds are virtually uninsurable for young drivers? Is not this a practical indication that exceptionally high speeds, although lawful, are regarded as serious insurance risks?

Mr. Marples: That may well be non sequitur. On this particular motorway we have a traffic engineering committee which has examined the behaviour of traffic very carefully, and so far the committee does not think that a speed limit would be justifiable. It would be illogical to impose one on a road specially built for high speeds whereas there is no speed limit on other trunk roads.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who frequently use the M1 are worried about the relatively few occasions when we see police patrols? Will he enter into urgent discussions with the police authorities on this matter? Is he also aware that in the two road-houses on this road, especially on Saturday nights, there is a certain amount of hooliganism, which some people believe to originate in undue indulgence in alcohol taken before coming on the road?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Speed limits have nothing to do with hooliganism.

Mr. Rankin: Since when we approach the boundaries of local authorities they inform us that speed kills, why should not the right hon. Gentleman limit speed, even on motorways?

Mr. Marples: I think that if speed kills it depends on the circumstances in which it is applied.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how impressed I am by the superiority of manners on the M1 compared with those on any other highway? It is the highway on which I feel safest.

Mr. Marples: It is a long time since I have been able to say that I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I disagree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just said, I think that you stopped my supplementary question because I referred to indulgence in alcohol, and you pointed out that this Question was about speed. My supplementary question, however, pointed out that speed was often engendered because of indulgence in alcohol.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I think that the hon. Gentleman was unjustly frustrated by myself, and I apologise to him and to the House.

Road Programme

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the light of the Press comment issued by his Department on 6th June indicating that the proposals of the British Road Federation for the doubling of capital spending on the road programme would have to be considered against the similar large sums required for other national developments, he will now state whether it will be possible for him to announce before the Summer Recess any further plans for large scale road developments in this country over the next five years.

Mr. Marples: I have already this year announced motorway starts costing over £46½ million in all. I have also informed highway authorities that I am prepared to consider classified road schemes over the next three years costing more than £100 million in grant. I have at present no further announcement to make.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend studied the implications of the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplating a curtailment of public expenditure? In view of the important productive contribution

made by motorways, will he represent to the Chancellor that the new road programme should not in any way be curtailed, and, if possible, should be expanded in the interests of production and of our export industries?

Mr. Marples: I will see that my right hon. and learned Friend has a note of that supplementary question so that he can take it into account.

Mr. Strauss: While accepting that there is to be an increase in the number of new roads started, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the present programme is adequate for the needs of the country?

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that it is not only a question of cash allocation but also of the resources available. Recently, in certain parts of the country where there is full employment, it has proved difficult to get suitable tenders.

Worcester Northern Link Road

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that there is now abundant evidence that the Birmingham Motorway will not serve its full purpose without the Worcester Northern Link Road, he will now give a definite notification as to when the necessary order will be made, together with a timetable indicating when construction will commence and be completed.

Mr. Hay: An Order establishing the line of this road will be made within a week or two. I hope that construction will start in 1963 and be completed in two years.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not that reply mean that the completion of the Worcester Northern Link Road will not be effective until about 1965—more than four years ahead—whereas the Birmingham-South Wales motorway will be completed within a year? As the Worcester Northern Link Road is an essential ingredient in the flow of traffic from Birmingham to South Wales, cannot this Northern Link Road be greatly expedited?

Mr. Hay: It cannot, for the reasons which I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in connection with the M.1 extension. We must work within the confines


of the statutory processes laid on us by Parliament. There is no way of short-circuiting these without running the risk of causing great damage to the interests of individuals.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister has given that reply on two or three occasions. Is he aware that many of us are as concerned about this as is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Will the Minister consider looking at the statutory provisions to see whether they ought to be brought up to date?

Mr. Hay: The statutory provisions have recently been examined by my right hon. Friend's Department. We have been obliged to come to the conclusion that unless we are prepared to ride roughshod over the interests of individuals there is virtually no way in which these processes can be curtailed.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rankin, to ask Question No. 36.

Mr. Steele: Does the Minister not realise that this means that we should start earlier?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having to be tyrannous because our progress with Questions has been so bad of late.

Devon

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport if he now expects to re-allocate funds at his disposal in order to increase the amount of grant available to the Devon County Authority for the years 1961–62 and 1962–63 above the figure of £203,000 for the financial year 1960–61.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The three year programme which I have announced reflects the priority for urban schemes which I consider essential.

Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is an extremely unsatisfactory reply? Does he appreciate that those of us in the West Country consider that we have been having far too small an allocation of the funds available for the improvement of west country roads? Will my right hon. Friend please do something about it?

Mr. Marples: The Question refers to the Devon County Council. There have

been substantial and expensive classified road schemes approved for grant in Plymouth and Exeter, and more are included in the rolling programme. Those are two of the most important towns in Devon.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement about the award of a contract for the prototype nuclear-propelled merchant vessel.

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement about the construction of a nuclear propelled merchant ship.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state a date when he will announce his findings on the building of an experimental nuclear-powered ship for commercial purposes.

Mr. Marples: I regret that I am still not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the design study of this nuclear-powered tanker has been in hand since 1958, three years ago, and that he has now had tenders for at least eleven months? In view of this delay and the importance of this project, can my right hon. Friend undertake to make a statement before the long Recess?

Mr. Marples: No, I should not like to do that. We have got only limited resources, and it is my duty to use them to the best advantages. It may well be better to use the available money to try to find out what is a really economic reactor.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend now decided that none of the reactors for which tenders were submitted is satisfactory? Is he now waiting for a new reactor either from the Atomic Energy Authority or from some of the private developers? Will he undertake to make a statement so that we shall all know where we are? We certainly do not at the moment.

Mr. Marples: I am surprised to learn that my hon. Friend does not know


where she is. I am bound to say that at the moment there is little to be gained from any such ship, as The Times leader said. It may well be so. Experts have agreed that the reactors proposed would not be economic and show little sign of being so. What I am concerned with is doing the best we can with the limited financial resources at our disposal.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman made a policy decision not to go ahead with this, or is he dissatisfied with the design he has in hand?

Mr. Marples: No. No decision has yet been made. The whole of the factors are being studied.

Common Market Ports (Trade)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport what information he has about the transfer of shipping from London Port to the ports of the Common Market countries; and whether he will give the reasons for this.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes-Hallett): No figures are available, but I understand that a certain amount of trade may have been diverted from the Port of London to some of the major ports in Common Market countries. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which appears to be their relative freedom from unofficial labour troubles. No doubt the general question is one which the Rochdale Committee will consider in the course of its inquiry.

Mr. Woodburn: No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen the statement that nearly one-third of the traffic has already disappeared and that there is great danger to the Port of London. Is he aware that a similar situation is occurring in other ports in the United Kingdom? Is it not said that there is also the question of the inability of those ports to handle big ships of above a certain size, which then go to Continental ports to have their cargoes reloaded into smaller ships to be brought to this country? Has he any information and can anything be done?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The freight rates are a measure of the relative attractiveness of various ports. The Ministry's freight market representative

has confirmed that a lower ocean freight rate is usually obtainable for bulk cargoes by ocean ships at Continental ports, such as Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Hamburg, than in respect of discharge in United Kingdom ports, and that the coaster freight rates payable for the movement from the Continental ports to the small United Kingdom East Coast ports do not nullify that advantage in ocean rates.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not also true that we have lost an enormous amount of exports this year through the strikes in the London Docks and that the Continental ports are taking business away from us because they have more modern machinery and because labour on the Continent allows that modern machinery to be used, whereas labour in the London Docks has a more restrictive attitude towards the use of machinery?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir, but it is only fair to say that, apart from labour troubles, the rate of discharge as a whole is somewhat better in the Continental ports, although the United Kingdom ports are not too bad when it comes to the discharge of cargo in bulk. There is another factor, namely, that the Continental ports are sometimes used because only part of the cargo is for the United Kingdom and it pays to send the ship direct to the Continental port and to discharge the main cargo at places such at Rotterdam, where it then goes up the Rhine in barges

Mr. Mellish: Should not the Parliamentary Secretary make this quite clear and, as a representative of the Government, say that the turn-round in the London docks, in spite of any labour troubles which there may or may not be, is among the fastest in the world? Is not the Rochdale Committee, which was set up by the Minister of Transport, empowered to look into not just this question but the whole problem of the management of the docks? Would it not be right to say that we have nothing of which to be ashamed in the London Docks and that their turn-round of shipping is very fast?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is certainly within the power of the Rochdale Committee to report on this,


and it will undoubtedly do so. My information about the rate of turn-round compared with foreign ports is that the results on some of the docks are excellent, but that, unfortunately, they are variable.

Shipbuilding (Credit Facilities)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of British ships are being built abroad because shipowners can obtain credit facilities there that cannot be obtained in Great Britain; and if he will set up a credit organisation for shipbuilding development in the United Kingdom, such as exists in other countries, in order to enable British shipowners to have their ships constructed in United Kingdom shipyards.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No case has so far been brought to my notice of a British shipowner placing an order abroad simply because of credit terms. We are, however, discussing with the General Council of British Shipping the question of what assistance, if any, is required in the light, among other things, of the comments in the report of the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is no desire among shipowners for a Government subvention but for credit facilities? Is he also aware that, because of the lack of these facilities, I am told that ships are going to the Continent? Could he not consider some method similar to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act which would enable shipowners to get credit for a certain number of years?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very open-minded about giving help where needed. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any example of an order going abroad exclusively for credit reasons, I should be grateful if he would give me the information.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of us are beginning to wonder for which country he is Minister of Shipping? Does not he know that there are many ports along the West Coast, especially in

South Wales, which are absolutely trouble-free and give the fastest turn-rounds anywhere?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be quite a different topic.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry if I did not convey the point, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman asks a question which is out of order he must bear the consequences.

Mr. P. Williams: My hon. Friend mentioned a discussion with the Chamber of Shipping. When does he expect to come to any conclusions and announce a constructive Government policy on this matter?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am afraid that I can only say—as soon as possible.

Canada (Shipping Restrictions)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in his consideration of the restrictions about to be imposed on British shipping by the Canadian Government he will ascertain whether they will apply to United States of America and other foreign shipping; and if he will make a statement.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Section 671 of the Canada Shipping Act already provides that ships other than British ships shall not transport goods between one Canadian port and another except in special circumstances for which provision is made in Section 673.

Mr. Shinwell: As these restrictions are likely to have a very detrimental effect on a certain class of British shipping, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman reply to my Question and say whether United States shipping is under similar restrictions to other foreign shipping in these waters?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes. My reply meant that under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act ships other than British ships are, as a general rule, already debarred from participation in the Canadian coastal trade. There is provision for special exceptions. I understand that foreign ships carry very little coastal traffic in the area in question.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on what will be the financial and other repercussions on the United Kingdom as a result of the modifications proposed by Canada to the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The direct financial consequences of the Canadian proposals are not in themselves very serious for United Kingdom shipping companies. But, of course, any restrictions on the freedom of shipping are to be deplored because such examples are readily followed.

Mr. Rankin: The financial effect may not be of great consequence, but can the Minister say exactly what will be the value of the port to port trade within the Great Lakes area which will be affected? Can he also tell us what will be the position of South Africa in this variation of the Agreement, as she was a member of the Commonwealth when her signature was appended to the Agreement in 1931? Now that she is outside the Commonwealth, can she prevent the Agreement being modified?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I cannot at present give an exact figure of the estimated cost. It is now being examined by the General Council of British Shipping. I can only repeat that, fortunately, it is not itself a very serious figure. As regards the second part of the question, Article 15 of the Common wealth Merchant Shipping Agreement requires that the Canadian modification should be circulated by the United Kingdom to the other signatories, and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, South Africa was one of them, as also was the Irish Free State. The legal position of those two countries is now being examined.

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport if consultations with the Canadian Government in advance of a modification of the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement have been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are examining the Canadian Government's recent proposal and hope to send them our comments quite soon.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that these proposals have been discussed for some considerable time, and that there has been a perfectly reasonable time in which the Government could have made recommendations? Has this been done? If not, why not?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. We had no previous consultation, and naturally we would have preferred to have discussed the proposals with the Canadian Government before that public announcement was made.

Mr. Shinwell: Are these comments which are to be addressed to the Canadian Government based on consultations with the General Council of British Shipping?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Projecting Loads and Mobile Cranes

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to introduce the regulations he is contemplating concerning long, wide and projecting loads and mobile cranes.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents involving travelling cranes in transit in collision with other vehicles have occurred within the past 12 months; and when he proposes to lay regulations on this subject before Parliament.

Mr. Marples: I regret that the precise information asked for is not available, but I know of 13 accidents involving mobile cranes and double-deck buses since April, 1960. Our proposals for regulating the movement of long and projecting loads met with considerable opposition, but as a result of meetings with the interests concerned it seems probable that they can be so modified as to reduce the burden on industry without impairing their effectiveness. Some complex technical points are involved and the drafting of the regulations will inevitably take time.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Whilst appreciating that the framing of these regulations is a complex business, may I


ask my right hon. Friend whether he recalls that we in Nottingham raised this matter over three years ago and that when his hon. Friend was replying to a Question similar to this five months ago he said that his right hon. Friend needed no urging in the matter and was on the point of announcing his decision? Does my right hon. Friend also know that at almost exactly the time as that Answer was being given to me the jib of one of these mobile cranes was tearing out the top deck of a passenger bus in my constituency? Would my right hon. Friend therefore view the matter with rather greater urgency?

Mr. Marples: We hoped to arrive at an early decision, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the road hauliers and the industry generally raised most violent objections to the regulations which we proposed and I was in honour bound to consult them to see whether we could achieve our objective without imposing intolerable burdens on industry.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a list of eight accidents which have occurred in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne since the middle of 1959 from this cause? Is he aware that in July, 1957, the M.P.T.A. raised this matter with him and that in February of this year he said that regulations would be laid at a very early date? When will the right hon. Gentleman do something? There has been one fatal accident and scores of other accidents, eight of them in my constituency.

Mr. Marples: I was not here in 1957 to receive the petition. I shall be glad to have the hon. Member's list. This is a very complex matter and if we are not very careful in framing our regulations we shall impose a great burden on industry which will raise costs. If I can achieve both efficiency in industry and at the same time get the smoothness in the flow of traffic that I am after, surely that is the best thing to do.

Motor-cycle Clubs (Driving Tuition)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport if in the interests of promoting road safety, he will provide a grant to motor-cycle clubs to enable them to extend tuition to drivers of motor-cycles and scooters.

Mr. Hay: We are already making a grant to the Royal Automobile Club of up to £3,000 a year towards the cost of administering the R.A.C./A.C.U. Scheme for training learner motor cyclists and scooter riders. We are at the moment considering proposals for the expansion of this scheme.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that these motor-cycle clubs, which in a quite voluntary way are doing this training, are finding it very difficult to meet their financial costs? In view of the recent statement by the Minister that twice as many motor-cycle accidents take place in the first six months of driving as in later years, may I ask whether, from the point of view of safety, the hon. Gentleman would consider a very generous contribution to those clubs which are training motorcyclists?

Mr. Hay: If the hon. Member is suggesting that we should make a direct grant to individual clubs, apart from the R.A.C./A.C.U. Scheme to which I referred in my Answer, this would entail many difficulties. In any event, it is more convenient for us to make a grant, as we do now, to the central body which conducts this kind of training.

Driving Tests

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing a system of graduated driving tests which would make some allowance for the speed and power of the vehicle concerned.

Mr. Marples: The load of work at present being carried by the driving test organisation makes any form of further test impracticable for the time being. But some form of further test might well contribute to road safety, and I am keeping my hon. Friend's proposal under review.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I say that I regard that Answer as being rather stone-walling? Does he not think that the present system of tests is quite inadequate and that it fails wholly even to touch upon the ability of a young driver to drive a motor car at speeds up to 60, 70 or 80 miles an hour and that, as such, it is becoming a complete farce, out of date


and silly? Is he aware that there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that this is the cause of many accidents? May I hope that he takes the matter more seriously?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend is a little too indignant. A better idea than a system of graduated driving tests might be a system of graduated driving licences, which is a different proposition altogether.

Motor Vehicles (Brakes and Lights)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the motor industry about the desirability of fitting a duplicate braking system on motor cars.

Mr. Marples: All cars are at present required to have two independent means of brake operation; if one fails there must still be sufficient braking power to bring the vehicle to rest. My technical officers started discussions with the motor industry same time ago about the possible revision of current requirements. In these discussions the merits of divided service brake systems will be given full weight.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of accidents have occurred through a failure of the hydraulic braking system, and that perhaps he is mistaken in supposing that I am referring also to the hand brake. Is the Minister aware that in the new Type "E" Jaguar cars, for example, a duplicate hydraulic system is provided at very little extra cost? Would not such a system make an important contribution to road safety?

Mr. Marples: Those considerations are being discussed between my Department and the trade.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that his reply is correct? Is he not aware that the hand brake is inadequate to stop heavy commercial vehicles going down a steep decline if there is a faulty hydraulic braking system?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I think that my reply was absolutely correct.

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the motor industry regarding the fitting of green lights at the rear of heavy goods vehicles to indicate to the driver of a car following them that it is safe to pass.

Mr. Hay: The decision to overtake must always be that of the following driver, and I think a device of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend might well increase rather than decrease any risk which might be involved.

Mr. Johnson: I agree that it is the decision of the following driver, but the provision of a light such as I have suggested would at least indicate to him that it was safe to pull out from behind a heavy lorry to see whether he could pass without immediately meeting another vehicle. Would not a system of that kind make a contribution to preventing congestion behind these very tall and heavy goods vehicles?

Mr. Hay: I agree that that is a consideration to be borne in mind, but I think that there would be greater safety by always placing the obligation to pass on the driver who wants to pass so that he does not have to rely on some signal given by another driver in front of him. It was for that reason that we dropped from the Highway Code the signal which meant, "I am willing to be overtaken"

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the first step is to paint the back of these big vehicles white so that drivers will go round them instead of trying to go through them?

Commercial Vehicles (Rear Lights)

Captain Litchfield: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now given further consideration to the adequacy of the regulations governing the rear lighting of commercial vehicles.

Mr. Hay: We are satisfied that the statutory twin rear lights and twin reflectors required by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, for commercial vehicles are adequate, provided, of course, that they are satisfactorily maintained. The whole question of the lighting of vehicles generally is now under close review, and we are at present studying the comments we have received


on proposals for the carriage of additional side lights by vehicles over 40 ft. in length, and additional lights and other markings for vehicles carrying projecting loads.

Captain Litchfield: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is common experience to come up on slow traffic, lorries and so on, with dim, inadequate, and badly sited lighting? Following his right hon. Friend's reply to my last Question, is he not aware that a lorry travelling at 40 miles an hour can be lawfully overtaken at a relative overtaking speed of about 100 miles an hour? Does he not see great danger in this, and agree that some urgent action is necessary to improve rear lighting on heavy vehicles?

Mr. Hay: This is not a simple matter. As I said in my original Answer, the requirement of the law if fully observed should cause none of the difficulties to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. This is an enforcement problem, but we are going into the whole question of the lighting of vehicles, and we shall make a statement about it as soon as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Victoria Line

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport how long it is estimated that the completion of the Victoria Line would take from the date on which its construction is authorised.

Mr. Marples: About six years.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of his predecessors told the House on 5th June, 1957, that he had been approached by the British Transport Commission regarding the construction of this line and was considering the financial problems which it posed? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, bear in mind that about four years have already been lost while decisions have not yet been reached?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir; I will bear that in mind.

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport whether the re-assessment of the requirements of the railways as a whole by the new Chairman of the

British Transport Commission now enables him to make a statement about the future of the Victoria Line.

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position, consequent upon the reassessment of railway requirements undertaken by the new Chairman of the British Transport Commission, to make a statement as to his intentions in respect of the Victoria Line.

Mr. Marples: The requirements of the railways as a whole are still being examined, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the proposed Victoria Line.

Mr. Harvey: Following the reference which I have already made to the assurance given by one of his predecessors that he was looking at the financial problem in June, 1957, does my right hon. Friend realise that another of his predecessors said in February, 1959, that he had referred the matter to the London Travel Committee? Does my right hon. Friend realise that in July, 1959, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told the House that his right hon. Friend would make a decision as soon as possible after receiving the report of the London Travel Committee? Does he realise that in March, 1960, having received the report, he himself told us that the whole of the railway system underground and above ground was being re-examined, and that recently he told us that the matter must await Dr. Beeching's review? Does he further realise that an awful lot of people throughout the north-east London area are being exasperated by this constant procrastination?

Mr. Marples: I shall study most carefully what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Speaker: We really shall never make progress with Questions if hon. Members make what are virtually speeches instead of asking questions.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, when he has received Dr. Beeching's report and considered it—which I suppose may take a year—the next excuse will be for delay over a decision on this project?

Mr. Marples: Not until I receive the report.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Steele: On a point of order. I should like to raise a question concerning the calling of Members to ask supplementary questions. I should like to know whether the qualification for catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to ask long and complicated supplementary questions.

Mr. Speaker: I really want the help of the House over Questions. If hon. Members will regard Question Time as an opportunity for making speeches, more or less in an interrogatory form, we shall never get on. I do not want to be nagging all the time. That would be so tiresome to everybody, especially to my-self. I must ask the help of the House in this matter. I am sorry that I cannot call all the Members who want to ask supplementary questions. There is just not time to do it.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the general interest which has been aroused by the revelation that there is a complete colour bar at Paddington Station, I specially asked the Minister of Transport if he would request you to permit him to answer Questions Nos. 47 and 48 after Question Time. I should like to know whether you have received such a request from the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not received any such request.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the great public interest in this question, and also in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport will not be answering Oral Questions again before the Summer Recess, may I ask whether the Minister of Transport has indicated in any way that he desires to make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member could not have heard me. My voice is, apparently, not powerful enough. I said that I had received no such request.

MOTIONS (MEMBERS' NAMES)

Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order. I desire to raise a Question in connection with Motion No. 129 on the Order Paper of Notice of Questions and Motions for 19th June.
[That this House deplores the aggression by the Portuguese authorities against defenceless Africans in the Colony of Angola, which has resulted in death and suffering of tens of thousands of people and has become a threat to good relations between the independent African States and the allies of Portugal within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action at the United Nations with a view to action to prevent further bloodshed and chaos; and believes that peace and security in Angola can only be achieved on the basis of full respect for human rights and the establishment of a democratic constitution.]
The Motion was originally put down two days ago. Yesterday, a number of names were added, and the last name appearing on yesterday's Order Paper was that of Mr. James Carmichael. I have discovered that Mr. James Carmichael was made a Steward of the Manor of Northstead on 8th June, and is, therefore, no longer a Member.
There are three questions that I should like to ask your advice about, Mr. Speaker. First, how is it that Mr. Carmichael's name was put on the Order Paper yesterday, when he is no longer a Member? Secondly, whose responsibility is it to put names on the Order Paper? Thirdly, how can a name be taken off? I understand that there is no official means of taking a name off unless an hon. Member asks for it to be taken off.
From such inquiries as I have been able to make, I understand that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), whom I warned that I would be raising this point, was responsible for putting Mr. Carmichael's name on the Order Paper yesterday. I should like to give him an opportunity of explaining how it happened. I raise this question on the general ground that Members themselves ought to be responsible for putting their names, in their own handwriting, to Motions of this kind, rather than have a gentleman putting down his name when he is no longer a Member of the House, as happened in this case, as far as I can make out.

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockway rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will give the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) an opportunity to speak in a moment.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) warned me that he wanted to raise this matter, in order that I could make some inquiries.
How did Mr. Carmichael's name get on to the Motion? The answer is that it was one of the names—the others being the names of hon. Members—which were handed in by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough on Monday to be added to the Motion.
Whose is the responsibility in these matters? I would remind the House of a Ruling of my predecessor, on 24th March, 1947. He was asked to state the rules governing the handing in of Notices of Motion and the adding of Members' names to such Notices. Mr. Speaker then said:
The rules relating to Members handing or sending their names to be added to Motions or Amendments, are identical with those for sending or handing in any notice, that is that, if sent, a notice must bear the Member's autographed signature; if handed in by the Member concerned or by another Member duly authorised by him, a notice need not bear an autographed signature, nor do I think that the Clerks at the Table should be instructed to query a Member's authority to hand in a notice for another Member, which in my view would be disparaging to Members of this House who must be assumed to be acting honourably and with full responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 864.]
I would desire to adhere to the practice as then declared by my predecessor.
How has the name got off the Order Paper? The answer is that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, apologising for the mistake, and having realised that the name concerned was no longer the name of an hon. Member, asked that it might be removed, and it was then removed.

Sir J. Duncan: Will you consider slightly tightening up the rules, Mr. Speaker, so that a Member himself should provide an autographed signature before the names are accepted? It is extremely difficult for the Table if the signature is typed.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider that point, but there are obvious conveniences in allowing one Member to

authorise another to act on his behalf. From my own experience, I am not sure that we have had these errors or confusions very often.

Mr. Brockway: First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) for indicating to me that he wanted to raise this matter. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, I have already apologised to the Table. I should now like to apologise to you and to the House for having some responsibility for this infringement. May I explain how it occurred?
I sent a copy of the Motion to a number of my hon. Friends, asking them to consider it, and, if they were favourable to it, to consider adding their names. Inadvertently, the name of Mr. James Carmichael was in that list. He replied to me, giving me authority to add his name to the Motion. I want to be quite fair to Mr. Carmichael. It may be that he thought that his signature was merely required for general support, although, actually, it was quite clear from my letter that I wanted his signature to the Motion.
As soon as I discovered my mistake I went to the Table Office and apologised, and I asked if the name could be withdrawn. I end by repeating my regrets to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.

COSTS OF GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS

3.40 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that local authorities shall not be liable to pay to Her Majesty's Government the costs of prosecutions instituted by Government Departments in respect of matters in which the local authority is not concerned, and further to provide that this provision shall have retrospective effect.
The occasion which has led me to ask the leave of the House to introduce this Bill is the prosecution of a man called Soul, of Olney, in North Bucks. Mr. Soul had committed a whole series of frauds on the Income Tax, and he was duly prosecuted. I may say that the whole of the frauds were committed from his office in North Bucks.
To quote the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own words:
I agree that essentially Soul's only connection with Northampton, so far as concerns the offences with which he was charged, was that the Northampton 2nd Tax District dealt with the town of Olney, Bucks, where he lived and carried on his business.
So we have a gentleman, who is a stranger not only to Northampton but to Northamptonshire, committing a series of offences in another county and being prosecuted at Northampton Assizes.
I think that the prosecution took thirteen days. It was instituted by the Treasury. It was conducted by a Treasury solicitor and the Treasury briefed counsel and leading counsel. At the end of the case Mr. Soul was convicted and the question of the payment of the costs of the prosecution arose. The Commissioner, Mr. Roach, who tried the case, used these words:
With regard to the costs it is clearly not right that the Borough of Northampton should pay the costs.
Then he said, referring to Mr. Soul:
As greed moved you to do it, it is right that you pay part of the costs of the prosecution. You will pay a total of £1,200.
The costs of the prosecution were well over £5,000. The result of this was that, contrary to the intention of the judge and, I imagine, of everybody else, Northampton found itself charged with a bill running into several thousands. Until we know, both as to the appeal and as to the first trial, how much Mr. Soul will be able to pay, we do not precisely know how much that bill will be. But, certainly, there will be a minimum of £3,500 and perhaps the figure will be greater.
Northampton is not a very big borough and that figure, representing getting on for a ½d. rate, has been thrust on the Corporation. It relates to a matter of no concern to us in Northampton at all. One can well understand the idea behind the Costs in Criminal Prosecutions Act. It is, of course, that, normally speaking, prosecutions are brought by the local police and the cost falls on local funds. When a private prosecution is brought successfully, the prosecutor has been doing the job which the police ought to have done, and it

is reasonable that the cost should come from the same funds. But surely it is totally different when the prosecutor is a Government Department, and even more so when, for its own convenience, the Department brings a prosecution in a town which has nothing to do with the offence at all.
In the circumstances, I have advised the Corporation of Northampton simply not to pay. I have told the Corporation, that, in my view, the Treasury will never have the face to proceed to execution on a claim so patently unjust, but if it is stupid enough to do so, the Corporation will not be the first corporation which has gone to gaol in a just cause, and in support of the rights of its burghers.
But out of kindness, and because of my feeling for the Government, I wish to provide them with a way out so that they may not be faced with this awkward situation. I am, therefore, offering them my proposed Bill. It is a Measure to provide that a local authority shall not be liable for the costs of Government Departments when they introduce prosecutions in respect of matters with which the local authority is not concerned. To make quite certain that my Long Title is wide enough I have provided for retrospective action.
That is a way in which the Government could get out of this difficulty. Of course, a Bill introduced at this time by a private Member cannot proceed very far. If the Government like to take it over, they may draft it and put it in what form they wish. I can assure the Government that they will have little difficulty in getting it quickly through the House. It is a Bill which is supported by every shade of opinion—not only by hon. Members of all parties, but by hon. Members who were formerly members of both parties, hon. Members who are on the fringe and are no longer members of parties for the time being.
It is supported by everyone. Indeed, I may say the support is so wide that it extends from Suez to "Ban the Bomb". In these circumstances, I think that the Government may rest assured that if they choose this convenient way out of the difficulty in which they find


themselves they will have the co-operation of all hon. Members to put this Measure through the House conveniently and in time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paget, Sir G. Benson, Mr. Ede, Mr. M. Foot. Mr. Grimond, Mr. M. Hamilton, Sir A. V. Harvey, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Mr. Mayhew, Mr. Mulley, Sir G. Nicholson, and Captain Orr.

COSTS OF GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS

Bill to provide that local authorities shall not be liable to pay to Her Majesty's Government the costs of prosecutions instituted by Government departments in respect of matters in which the local authority is not concerned, and further to provide that this provision shall have retrospective effect, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 20th June.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

New Clause.—(RELIEF FOR INDUSTRIAL USE OF LIGHT OILS.)

(1) The Treasury may by order direct as respects articles of any class or description specified in the order that, subject to the provisions of the order, relief shall be allowed under this section in respect of light oils used, or which formed a component of any goods used, as an ingredient or a material, a solvent or other extractant, a preservative or finish in the manufacture or preparation (including dyeing or cleaning) of articles of that class or description.

(2) If on an application made for the purposes of this section it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that at any time within the period of six months preceding the date of the application, or within such longer period preceding that date as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, any quantity of light oils (or of goods containing light oils) has been used as aforesaid by the applicant in the manufacture or preparation in premises registered for the purposes of this section of articles as respects which relief is allowed under this section, the applicant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of the order granting the relief, to obtain from the Commissioners repayment of the amount (if any) of the customs or excise duty on hydrocarbon oils paid in respect of the quantity so used.

(3) An order under subsection (1) of this section in respect of light oils (or goods containing light oils) used as a material, solvent, preservative or finish in the manufacture or preparation of articles of any class or description may provide that the quantity of light oils as respects duty on which relief is to be allowed under this section shall be determined by reference to average quantities or otherwise.

(4) Section two hundred and sixty-seven of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which contains general provisions as to claims for drawback) shall apply to relief and applications for relief under this section as it applies to drawback and claims for drawback; and for the purposes of the said section two hundred and sixty-seven duties repaid under this section shall be deemed to have been drawn back.

(5) The power of the Treasury to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, and any order made by the Treasury under subsection (1) of this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by them.

(6) The power to make regulations conferred by section one hundred and ninety-eight


of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, shall include power to make regulations—

(a) regulating the allowance and payment of relief under this section;
(b) for making the allowance and payment of relief under this section subject to such conditions as the Commissioners see fit to impose for the protection of the Revenue;
(c) regulating the registration of premises for the purposes of this section and the storage of light oils on premises registered for those purposes, and requiring the occupier of premises so registered to keep such accounts and records as may be prescribed in the regulations and to preserve such books and documents relating to the purchase, receipt and use by him of light oils for such period as may be so prescribed.

(7) This section shall be construed as one with Part VI of Customs and Excise Act, 1952.—[Mr. Stevens.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Although, Sir Gordon, in your wisdom, you have not selected them, my hon. Friends tabled new Clauses the effect of which would be to give, in the one case, an Income Tax incentive, and, in the other, a Profits Tax incentive, to exporters from this country. I have not found myself able to support those new Clauses, but here is an entirely different Clause with a different intent. The intention is to remove an export tax deterrent, and that is a completely different thing.
As I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will know, these light hydrocarbon oils are used industrially for the manufacture of paints and thinners, in the making of linoleum and for rubber manufactures of all kinds. The duty, which is a revenue duty, was first introduced in 1928 at the low rate of 4d. a gallon. Over the years it has risen until it is now 2s. 6d. a gallon.
That revenue duty charged in this country is in contradistinction to the treatment of the same oils in countries all over the world. In countries competing with ours in the markets of the world in the manufacture of these items there is either no revenue tax at all, or a very small one. In the E.F.T.A. countries, for example, relief in respect of a duty of this kind varies from 65 per cent. to 100 per cent. in the Common Market countries the relief extends from 40 per cent. to 100 per cent. In the other countries of the

Commonwealth the relief is 95 per cent. to 100 per cent., and in America it is 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.
We alone as industrial users of these light oils put these heavy duties upon them. The duty amounts to 2s. 6d. a gallon. They are an important component part in the manufacture of many of these articles. The 2s. 6d. a gallon duty is equivalent to Is. 3d. a gallon on paint. In the case of thinners, the element in from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon.
This case is not new. It will not be new to hon. Members who have been Members of Parliament for a number of years. They will be familiar with the arguments against the introduction of this duty. The main argument is that the United Kingdom can get a full rebate in respect of exports and that in the home trade there is a protective duty. I do not think that either of those arguments is a complete answer.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be familiar with paint used on motor cars which are exported and on plant and machinery which is exported. It is almost impossible to decide what part of the cost of the motor car consists of the light hydrocarbon oils used in the manufacture of the paint which covers the cars. Another example is the rubber manufacturer who supplies to a boot manufacturer rubber-proofed linings. The solvent used to make the rubber solution stick to the linings contains a proportion of these light hydrocarbon oils. That provides a very great difficulty for the export trade.
In the home trade, there is a protective tariff which varies from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent. I am speaking here of imports to this country of goods using these oils. Of that 10 per cent. or 12½ per cent., 5 per cent. ad valorem is deemed to be the revenue duty equivalent to the United Kingdom producers' 2s. 6d. per gallon. Obviously, that is insufficient. It is not a full protection. By our agreements with the E.F.T.A. countries the protective duties will be progressively reduced, which means that those countries' competitive ability will be steadily increased.
It seems quite clear, therefore, that our export trade is not sufficiently protected by the drawback provisions. It seems that the home trade is not sufficiently protected against the import of these goods


because the protective tariff is not sufficiently high. I think that the question of the size of the burden of this duty is relevant. In the latest year for which I have figures available, 1959–60, this revenue tax brought in about £11 million. I do not want to disturb the balance of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Therefore, this new Clause does not ask that he should give up the whole £11 million, which would be too big a sum for him to afford on this occasion. The new Clause is not mandatory, but is permissive to the Treasury to make orders in certain circumstances.
It is worth pointing out that the concession—if that is the right term—the relief, for which the Clause asks is not in any way unique. Industrial users of alcohol pay no spirit duty, in contradistinction to those of us who use alcohol for a different purpose. If accepted, this Clause would simply put the light hydrocarbon oils used for industrial purposes on exactly the same footing as alcohol used for similar purposes.
I said that I did not feel able to support my hon. Friends in asking for an Income Tax-Profits Tax export subsidy. There are two very good reasons for that. One is that such a method would simply he asking for retaliatory measures by other countries. Secondly, as since the war we have done our best to persuade countries overseas to reduce the subsidies they have been giving to their export trades—and our action has met with considerable success—if, in 1961, we gave such an Income Tax export rebate or subsidy, surely we would again earn the name which used to apply to us, "Perfidious Albion".
For that reason, I did not feel able to support my hon. Friends in their very laudable desire, but here we have exactly the opposite position. We are not asking for an export subsidy that some other countries do not give to their exporters. We have deliberately handicapped our exporters in a way which no other competing country has done. This new Clause asks for a removal of that handicap.
Some may say: why should the industrial users of light hydrocarbon oils be singled out for relief in this way—what about the road haulage industry? There are two very big differences in principle between road haulage users of spirit

and the use of light hydrocarbon oils in manufactures. The first is that the road spirit tax is a general tax on distribution spread over the whole field of manufacture at all stages. In contrast, the revenue duty on industrial light oils is a tax on a specific range of products. On the raw material side, it is a direct addition to production costs. There are big differences there. Secondly, the users of light hydrocarbon oils who pay the 2s. 6d. revenue duty also pay the road spirit duty when they distribute their goods. I do not think that there is a parallel there.
For these reasons I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to accept this new Clause. We are not asking for any special treatment for users of light industrial oils, but only that our taxation policy on these light oils should be put on a par with the taxation policies of our competitors the world over. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to grasp this chance of helping the export trade, not by a subsidy which might invite retaliation, but by removing a tax penalty. In view of decreasing profit margins, which, we know, are coming in greater measure today, and increasing competition from the E.F.T.A. countries now in sight, and perhaps round the corner from Common Market countries, it is very difficult for the users of these oils to maintain their existing trade, and there are diminishing chances for them to build it up in future.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton): I rise not to comment on the merits or otherwise of the new Clause, although I have always felt that there is a strong case for the kind of argument which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has put forward. I think that it is pertinent to draw the Committee's attention to some of the background to the pressure put on hon. Members to support the Clause, because I think that all of us are growing more concerned about the activities of extra-Parliamentary pressure groups, of which more and more evidence is being produced in the Press as time goes on. I think that we all feel, as Members of the House, that there ought to be very careful scrutiny of some extra-Parliamentary activities.
In saying that, I imply no reflection whatever on any of the right hon. and


hon. Gentlemen who have signed the now Clause. Every one of them is known individually to all of us. We all know them to be hon. Members who would make no response to outside pressures other than perhaps to be likely to react in the direction opposite to that which was intended by the pressuring groups. Indeed, I have discussed this matter privately, and I gave notice to as many of the signatories as I could, and I found that they were not only completely free of these pressures and in no way involved in them, but, also, that they have a long record, over many years, of tabling this or a similar Clause before these pressures began. I hope that that will be clearly understood.
My attention has been drawn to a letter to one of my right hon. Friends referring to the new Clause on the Notice Paper last year, saying that that Clause had not been called and continuing:
Representations along similar lines have again been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my Committee"—
this is a committee which apparently has been set up in the trade to further this Clause—
hope that you will once more be willing to support a Clause which, it is hoped, will in due course appear on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the pending Finance Bill.
There is nothing wrong with that. We all receive letters almost every day throughout the hunting season of the Chancellor suggesting that we should support Clauses or Amendments to the Finance Bill. It is probable that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are currently in receipt of circulars from the Sand and Gravel Association which is always, quite properly, active at this time of the year. There can be no complaint about that. The cinema industry used to do it, and I can think of many other examples.
This letter continues:
The Committee also feel that it would greatly assist their case if they had the advantage of a parliamentary panel on light industrial oils, the members of which they could consult from time to time and to whom they would be glad to furnish all relevant information for use in any parliamentary debate in the event of the new Clause being called. It is hoped that the nucleus of the panel will consist of the Members of Parliament who supported the new Clause a year ago and a few additional Members who have shown particular interest in the use of light hydrocarbon oils by manufacturers in various

parts of the country. I am accordingly asked by the Committee to say that they would appreciate it if you could find time to attend a small buffet luncheon party at the House of Commons
on a particular day at a particular time and in a particular room.
I do not suggest, nor would anyone else, that there is a single hon. Member who can be influenced in his Parliamentary attitude by the price of a lunch. I am sure that we are all agreed about that. On the other hand, I feel that when there is hospitality of this kind hon. Members are all filled with a certain degree of bonhomie. Even the Chancellor has it on his day. Naturally, when we meet people and spend time in their company for an hour or two there is perhaps a subconscious desire to help them with whatever proposal they are putting forward. The Chancellor has to learn to say "No". He has said almost nothing else throughout the Bill. One imagines that in the months before the Budget and since he has had to receive many deputations and has had to say that fairly constantly all along the line, as have his two colleagues in the Treasury.
But I felt that it was worth while raising this point because of the letter from this industrial group. [HON MEMBERS: "Who is it?"] It is the Industrial Light Oils Committee. I felt that it was not satisfactory for industrial groups outside to approach hon. Members and to say, "We want to form a Parliamentary panel with a view to the tabling of a new Clause and to getting support for this Clause", and then to say, "It will be lubricated with a lunch". In this case it appears to have been a very austere lunch.

Mr. Stevens: The right hon. Gentleman is very generous in indicating that his shafts are not directed at any of those hon. Members who put their names to the Motion. It is, therefore, obvious that he is not directing any of his remarks at me. I am sure that he knows me well enough to know that I am not in the least interested in pressures of any kind, whether they come from just in front of me in the House or from outside. I received a copy of that letter, and I do not see why there should be any secret about it: my name appears on it, although the right hon. Gentleman was good enough not to mention the fact.


My name appears at the bottom of the letter as the sponsor of the lunch which this committee wished to hold.
I read that letter in a completely different manner from that in which the right hon. Gentleman read it. He spoke as though this Parliamentary panel were designed to put a new Clause on the Notice Paper. I think that if he goes back to the letter he will see that the word "information" is used. I read that letter as suggesting that this body, which consists of users or manufacturers of oils which are used in very technical processes, about which many hon. Members are not well informed, had the object of making sure that some of us who took part in the debate in the House on this very important subject would have some idea of what the subject was about. Occasionally, I feel that our debates serve a more useful purpose if some hon. Members who take part in them know something about the subject on which they are talking.

Mr. Wilson: Particularly after the two or three hours which we spent last night, I agree very much with what the hon. Member said. If it needs saying, I make it plain that I have been a colleague of the hon. Member for long enough on a very important Select Committee of the House for me not to need to say that I intended no reflection whatever on him. It is a very good thing that we receive information from outside, but when it is a question of a new Clause to the Finance Bill, the Chancellor will agree that hon. Members are usually well briefed with the case for reductions in taxation but are not usually briefed in the opposite direction. That is usually left to be handled by the Chancellor and his colleagues.
My right hon. Friend who received that letter was very distressed by it. He felt that it was almost a question of Privilege. I did not take that view, and I did not seek to raise it in that connection. But we are seeing more and more Motions on the Order Paper which are bound to benefit particular groups, most, if not all, I am certain, put on the Order Paper in a spirit of complete innocence and helpfulness, usually because of constituency interests. We are all involved in them.
I think that it has been worth raising the point. The reference to a Parliamentary

panel being serviced in this way from outside, to my mind at any rate, contains the seeds of danger. I am convinced that there are no dangers in this Clause, as I have said, and I am certain that the pressure did not decide who signed the Clause. All the hon. Members who have signed it have signed a similar Clause in past years, before these forms of pressure, if that is the right word, were developed.
My right hon. Friend received a second letter which read:
We were sorry that you were unable to attend our small luncheon party in the House of Commons on Tuesday. You may be interested to know that arrangements have now been completed for the tabling of a Clause on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the lines recommended by my Committee. They would appreciate it it you would be so good as to add your name to the new Clause.
I do not think that this is quite what we want to see in our proceedings on the Finance Bill. I do not want to put it higher than that. I do not think this compares with some of the highly improper pressures which I think are being put on hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons by some public relations firms. We are seeing far too much evidence of it, in relation to both domestic and international and colonial affairs. I do not think that this compares with that, but there has undoubtedly been, over the past two years, a development of this new profession, if we can call it that. It is an extremely degrading profession. I think that "corruption" is too strong a word. It is a rather squalid procedure which is developing. This is not of the same order as some of the things about which complaints have been made in the House of Commons.
Since this was the first case to be brought to my attention which might, however indirectly or remotely—perhaps with a new Member of Parliament—influence the signatures or the speeches or even the votes, I thought that it ought to be raised so that hon. Members could let it be known that we are perfectly capable of conducting our debates on the Finance Bill. We are not ungrateful for the considerable assistance we receive from industrial organisations—firms, trade associations, development councils, and the rest—which are never backward in seeing that we have the


necessary information. The wastepaper baskets in this building would bear full testimony to the truth of what I am saying.
While we are grateful to them, I thought it was worth while raising this so that, if any public relations firms whose methods are a good deal less scrupulous than the industrialists forming this body are thinking of operating in this way, or if anyone is thinking of signing up a public relations firm for the purpose of influencing the conduct of Finance Bills in the future, they will be warned off. We should give a clear indication that we will not tolerate it.
One thing is clear. There is no professional help in this case. This is not a case of an organisation signing up one of the public relations advisory bodies to act on behalf of this industry. These are genuine industrialists who feel that they have a strong case. I must say that I agree with them in this, just as the hon. Member for Langstone agrees with them. They probably felt that this was the most convenient way of briefing hon. Members who might be concerned. Anyone receiving letters of this kind, first asking him to a lunch and then saying, "We have put down a Motion. Will you add your name to it?" is bound to be a little concerned.
What I am concerned about is not so much this particular case, in which I am certain that no harm has been done, because of the individuals involved. I am concerned about the possible developments if industrialists feel that they have to hire public relations outfits as their only way of approaching Members of Parliament in order to get appropriate new Clauses tabled on the Finance Bill.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has tabled a number of Amendments, and the hon. Member for Langstone, who has, perhaps, sponsored more Amendments in the past few years than any other hon. Member—he used to be with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot); they are a partnership in these respects—have never required the assistance of any public relations firms to know what needed to be tabled.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I am my own public relations officer.

Mr. Wilson: That was a point which had not escaped us.
They have not required such help, yet no one could complain, having read the debates of the past few years, that they have lacked expert knowledge of the subjects being raised, at any rate as to most cases.
I apologise for having taken so long to raise this, but I see in this the seeds of a danger, to which attention should be called. I do not want in any way to prejudice our consideration of the merits of the Clause, but I hope that the result of my raising the matter will be a clear indication to any of these advertising firms or public relations outfits which think that they can intervene, or think that their services are needed at a high fee, to influence Members of Parliament in relation to future Finance Bills. They had better realise now that the least result of their activities will be to alienate Members against the cause they are supposed to represent and that the greater consequence of their pressures might be very serious action which the House of Commons might one day have to take.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver: I rise to support the Clause, for two very simple reasons. First, my constituents are very largely involved. We have paint factories in my constituency. Secondly, the principle affects the industrial centre of Birmingham, where my constituency is located.
I rise particularly because I feel that, if the Clause is not accepted, this country will deal with this problem in a very different way from that in which other countries deal with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) very fairly pointed out, if we try to compete with other countries but do not give a rebate to our own industry on some basis, although other countries do, we shall perform very poorly in the export race.
We have been told that the E.F.T.A. countries are prepared to grant rebates of up to 65 to 100 per cent. I want to draw the Committee's attention to some countries which give 100 per cent. Denmark, Norway and Sweden fall into this category. Examples of countries which give lower, but still very considerable, rebates are as follows. Austria


gives a rebate of 85 per cent. Even Portugal grants a 65 per cent. rebate. Switzerland goes up to 90 per cent. in certain cases. We are told that this country is now considering whether to go into the Common Market. If we do so, we should ensure that our industries have at least a fair chance of competing with industries in foreign countries.
As for Common Market countries, Belgium is prepared to give a rebate of up to 75 per cent. France gives a rebate of 77 per cent. Holland goes the whole way, up to 100 per cent., as does Western Germany. Commonwealth countries are quite alive to the position. Australia gives a rebate of up to 100 per cent. Canada gives one of from 95 to 100 per cent. I know that South Africa is not now in the Commonwealth, but she is willing to go up to 100 per cent. So is the United States, in certain cases.
We shall get into the position in which we expect British industrialists to compete in a very hard and callous world whilst labouring under a great penalty before they start. No racehorse owner in this country who enters for a selling race carries a 7 lb. penalty voluntarily. But when a British horse enters the export stakes someone comes along and handicaps it. As one of my constituents said to me the other day, "The Treasury is responsible for this and, personally, Mr. Cleaver. I think that they have not got a clue".
That shows the way our industrialists are thinking about this problem. If, at the same time as we urge them to be more economical, install better plant and make better use of their labour, we make it more difficult for them to compete abroad by placing this sort of duty on the materials they use, I do not think that we shall stand a very good chance with them. It is not surprising that they become bitter.
It has been said that the whole of this tax brings in about £11 million. That is not a lot of money compared to the whole Budget. It may also be said that it is not a lot of money compared to the whole costs of industry. The rebate for which we ask will affect only a limited number of firms. It also follows that the £11 million is borne by a limited number of organisations. To that extent, it affects more harshly the sections of

industry which we want to help. Although the total cost is said to be £10½ or £11 million, in the end it will cost my right hon. and learned Friend only £5 million, for the simple reason that this is applied to a raw material which is allowed as a deduction from the profits of a company before tax is paid.
I have said that it is the paint industry in which I am most interested. Therefore, I will repeat some of the ways in which it affects this industry most adversely. We have been told that the duty is 2s. 6d. In fact, it is equivalent to 1s. 3d. per gallon taken over the whole range of pigmented materials. That is the effect on the costs of this industry. The effect on the thinners, which form a large part of the production, is likely to be from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon, and that has a very large effect on the ultimate price of the material.
I know that percentages are always dangerous, but perhaps the Committee would like to hear some. Where the wholesale paint price is between 30s. and 35s. a gallon, the duty ranges from 4·1 per cent. to 8 per cent. The price of thinners using low hydrocarbons is very often from 10s. to 25s. a gallon, and the duty represents from 16·7 per cent. to 6·7 per cent.—so the effect there is worse. Where the wholesale price of those materials using high hydrocarbons is from 8s. to 12s. a gallon, the effect of the duty is from 31 per cent. to 20 per cent. The Committee will agree that those are very high figures.
Other industries besides the paint industry are involved—particularly the surface coating synthetic resin industry, where the figures are quite staggering. Where the price of these resins goes to £135 for 55 per cent. oil content, the duty is £16 10s. The manufacturers of imported resin which competes with ours have to pay an ultimate duty of only £5 17s. 9d. There is a very large difference there. We are putting an undue handicap on those industries whose products we want to see exported wherever we can.
There are three reasons I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider. There is the large duty payable on the home market. This obviously restricts the manufacturers' market, and makes it more difficult for them to get the high


turnover necessary to export at a lower price. Again, we get the drawback when we export articles for which we can easily prove the hydrocarbon oil content, but not where that content cannot be proved. In those cases, they very often form an indirect export applying very largely to plastic and rubber, where it is most unfortunate. Where paint goes out on the sides of a ship or on the sides of a motor car there is no rebate.
We cannot expect our manufacturers to be competitive unless we do everything we can to give them a fair chance. These pin pricks cause resentments, and handicap industrialists more than they should, so I ask the Chancellor to consider this matter.

Mr. Ede: For many years I have supported the principle behind this Amendment. In fact, a few years ago I regularly signed such a Motion on the Notice Paper. I have never had an offer of luncheon in respect of services in that direction, and, if the hon. Gentleman says that he has had such an invitation, let me say that all such invitations to me are put by my private secretary into the wastepaper basket at once. I can get such information as I require for my Parliamentary duties without having to be fed, and watching other people drinking wine.
I support this Motion. The case for it was so adequately put forward by hon. Members opposite that I should be trespassing on the time of the Committee if I did other than say that I accept it completely, and urge their arguments on the Chancellor.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) moved the new Clause with his characteristic lucidity, so I think that my best course is to deal with the several points made by him and by other hon. Members. First, I should point out that this Clause differs from some of the previous Clauses on the subject in that it merely provides machinery for Treasury Orders which would allow repayment of duty on light oils used as ingredients or in a number of similar ways in the manufacture or preparation of the goods specified in the Orders.
The proposals in this Clause are identical with those that were made to me by the group of industrialists who came to see me in February, and who were introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone. I am sure that the Committee will have noted what was said by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). I would only add that, from my own clear recollection, my hon. Friend who introduced these manufacturers to me, merely did that, and took no part in our discussions; in much the same way as hon. Gentlemen on both sides before Budget time repeatedly come to Treasury Ministers to put various points to them.
Secondly, in fairness to these people who came to see me, I must say that they put their case with very considerable moderation. Indeed, I think that it is in line with what the right hon. Gentleman said about this case, to which he referred—

Mr. A. E. Cooper: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must declare an interest, and say at once that the Industrial Light Oils Committee which he met, and which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens), is not an organisation that has been created this year for this specific object. This committee has been in existence very nearly since the end of the war, when this duty was first introduced, and its leaders in the paint, varnish and cellulose lacquer industry are men whom I have known for many years, and men of the highest possible integrity.

Mr. Barber: From my own knowledge of these matters over the years, I can confirm what my hon. Friend says about the Industrial Light Oils Committee.
The first point I want to make is that the duty was originally designed as a general revenue duty on all light hydrocarbon oils with, as I think my hon. Friends will agree, no significant exceptions for any particular class of user, The object was to spread the burden as widely and as evenly as possible, and to avoid tire establishment of an elaborate and expensive machinery of reliefs such as stultified the former motor spirit duty, which broke down completely in 1921 and was repealed.
At the time of the imposition of the hydrocarbon oil duty, in 1928, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford


(Sir W. Churchill) specifically referred to light oils used for various industrial purposes. As I understand it, what my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone and others are saying is that, despite the fact that this principle has, broadly speaking, been maintained now for more than thirty years, it is a bad principle and that, on its merits, an exception should be made in this case.
I want to be perfectly fair. My hon. Friend was quite correct in saying that a number of other countries grant tax relief for oils used in industrial processes, but, with his own extensive knowledge of tax matters, I am sure that he will agree that no firm conclusion can be drawn from this without taking into account the general level and system of taxation as a whole in those countries. In the United Kingdom, the hydrocarbon oil duty is one of the major revenue sources, but I do agree with my hon. Friends that this factor—namely, the way in which the duty on hydrocarbon oil used for industrial purposes is treated in other countries—is a very relevant factor to take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said that this duty was an export tax deterrent; but, of course, there is provision for drawback of duty on oil which is used in the manufacture of exported goods—including the losses involved in manufacture—whether or not they contain oil when they leave this country. Secondly, I do not think that the United Kingdom producer need be under any disability in foreign markets on account only of the duty.
As I know from what they told me when I saw them, the manufacturers complained about the procedure for claiming drawback. I realise that in certain cases, where a very small consignment is involved, it may not be worth their while to claim the drawback. But if one is to have a system of drawback there must be a minimum amount of documentation and, in fact, more than £½ million of drawback was paid in respect of this part of the duty in the financial year 1959 to 1960. But, certainly, I would be willing to consider any representations which are made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lang-stone, or direct by those manufacturers concerned, with suggestions for improving the machinery for claiming drawback.
4.30 p.m.
Reference was made to the effect of the European Free Trade Association. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said, that the Stockholm Convention will change matters to the extent that, eventually, the protective duty will not be levied on E.F.T.A. goods, so leaving the oil duty—which is a revenue duty and will not have to be abolished—as the actual duty payable on goods containing oil when imported, and no duty payable on goods in which no oil remains.
I should mention that in the manufacture of goods involving the use of hydrocarbon oils, in some cases, after the manufacture is completed, no oil is left as an ingredient in the ultimate goods produced, and that is the relevance of these particular provisions which apply to members of the European Free Trade Association.
I should point out two facts in this connection. First, the trade generally in this country does not appear to have suffered significantly from competition from imports from Commonwealth sources which have, for many years, been imported free from protective duty. Secondly, United Kingdom manufacturers, as exporters to the E.F.T.A. countries, can themselves expect to get benefits from the E.F.T.A. Convention.
I now turn to a difficulty of a more fundamental character. There have, over the years, as the Committee will remember, been innumerable requests for relief from the hydrocarbon oil duty. They have been pressed by various types of users.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman help me over a difficulty concerning the point he last mentioned? It is perfectly true that, I think, Section 203 of the Customs and Excise Act provides for drawback in respect of the export of articles in the manfacture of which hydrocarbon oil is used or incorporated. But when, the other day, we were discussing the difficulties of discriminating in favour of exports, we all had in mind the sort of difficulties where an article, such as one containing hydrocarbon oil, is used in the manufacture or is incorporated in some other article, and that other article, in its turn, may or may not be exported.
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile, in principle, the distinction between the case which is covered by that Section 203 and the case where the article which is covered by Section 203 is then incorporated in some other article? This matter was raised the other day about spinners, weavers and cloths, and motor car components.

Mr. Barber: As I understand the position, if light hydrocarbon oils is involved in the manufacture of an article which is exported, then the manufacturer can claim drawback in respect of the oil used in the manufacture of that article, making full allowance for normal losses. He can also claim drawback in respect of that article which is exported, even though, as a consequence of the method of manufacturer, there is no oil remaining in the article at the time of exportation.
Consequently, so far as light hydrocarbon oil is concerned, it seems that the United Kingdom manufacturers are under no disadvantage whatever. The point I was making, in fairness to my hon. Friend who raised the specific aspect of the effect of the Stockholm Convention, was that the duty which is charged on manufactures which come into this country and which have involved the use of light hydrocarbon oils in their manufacture can only be charged on the basis of the oil which is actually present in the goods when they are imported.
In other words, as my hon. Friend pointed out, goods which are imported into this country and which have involved in their manufacture the use of light hydrocarbon oils, but which do not actually contain the oil at the end of their production and by the time they are imported, are not charged import duty in respect of that oil. To that extent it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said, that the United Kingdom industry is at a slight disadvantage.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that one is bound to get into this sort of cats' cradle once one starts taxing industrial raw materials in this way?

Mr. Barber: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure that he will agree, on reflection, that there is certainly no accepted principle that raw

materials should not be taxed. Indeed, a relevant principle of taxation is rather that goods, so far as possible, should be differentiated for taxation purposes according to their nature, rather than according to the use to which they are put.
I was dealing with what I considered to be a very considerable difficulty in this particular case. I was saying that there have been claims pressed for exemption from the light hydrocarbon oil duty on many occasions over the years, but that so far, with very few exceptions, the House of Commons Committee has not agreed that these claims should have special treatment. The general principle has been that all users of oil should bear the incidence of the duty alike. This principle has not only been maintained in relation to light oils, but, this year, in regard to heavy oils duty, the Committee has resisted proposals for giving relief for certain users, such as for domestic parrafin, creosote, and agricultural machinery, including tractors.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir Derek Walker-Smith) is in court today and cannot be here. His name appears at the head of this proposed new Clause. He was, himself, not unconnected with the debate on the horticultural industry some weeks ago. If he had been here I do not think that he would have invoked that precedent for what is being proposed. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said then, what he was trying to do must not be regarded as the thin end of the wedge or a precedent for other concessions.
Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone and other hon. Members may think about the merits of this Clause, I am sure that those who have watched our proceedings over the years, and certainly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, from his own Treasury experience, would not have considered it wholly irrelevant for me to point out that a concession to industrial light oils would certainly encourage other users of oil to seek concessions themselves.
The duty on petrol, for example, it might be claimed, would increase the cost of transport and, consequently, put up costs. My hon. Friend the Member


for Langstone said that he did not think that this was a parallel case, but he will admit that it would be put as such by the goods transport people if this Clause were accepted.
In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, I will not do more than refer to the fact that in 1956 he had the task—and he no doubt felt it right to do so—to oppose a Clause on similar lines in his capacity as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and, consequently, the Committee will appreciate that this is not a very easy matter with which to deal. But there is one other factor which I hope, and, indeed, I am sure, my hon. Friends will bear in mind. That is the cost of this Clause in the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's provision for a net increase in taxation this year. On another occasion this may not be so relevant, but I do suggest that it is a factor of considerable importance this year
My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone quite rightly said that the Clause as drawn in this form is not mandatory, but permissive. The direct cost consequently would depend upon the scope of the orders made by the Treasury under the Clause. But if orders were limited, on the ground of cost, on too selective or restricted a basis, I think that the industry would rightly complain that the Treasury was being inequitable.
The fact is that the cost of this Clause might well be £8 million a year. If, as is quite likely, the Clause had to be extended to cover other industrial uses such as the bench testing of petrol engines and stationary engines, and industrial uses of heavy oils, the cast could easily be £16 million or more a year.
The advice which I have tried to give to the Committee is not something which must necessarily stand for all time, any more than the advice which was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East in 1956 represented his concluded view for all time. Consequently, even if the Committee disagrees with what I have said about the merits of the proposal, and even if hon. Members take the view that the anxieties which I have expressed about the repercussions of this concession are ill-founded, I hope that the Committee will feel that it would not be right, in

the context of this year's Budget, to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to a proposal which would cost £8 million to £16 million a year.

Mr. H. Wilson: When I intervened earlier I was dealing purely with a procedural point, and I take right away the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) when he said, as we all know, that the Industrial Light Oils Committee represents the leaders of a responsible and reputable industry. That has never been in question at all.
As we know, the problem that we are discussing today, with all its intricacies, has been on the Notice Paper on many occasions in the past and has been debated a number of times—I think almost since the end of the war. I should like to support what the Economic Secretary said about those who came to see him. I am sure they put the case with great vigour and with knowledge of their industry.
I come to the merits of the proposal. It is very hard to make up one's mind on this matter. Hon. Members who have supported the proposal produced very strong reasons for saying that it should be accepted by the Treasury. The Economic Secretary's reasons for turning it down were twofold. One was the general—I would not say philosophical—argument, the general Treasury argument that this was not the right way to distinguish—

Sir William Robson Brown: It is not philosophical.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has not heard all the speeches that have been made during the Committee stage of the Bill. I can assure him that when the Financial Secretary speaks we sometimes get into very deep metaphysics.
Whatever the right word is, we have had a sort of general Treasury approach to this problem, to the effect that one does not distinguish by the use to which the material is put, but that one distinguishes as far as one can by the identifiable characteristics of the material. This has always been the Treasury doctrine, and one recognises the difficulties that we had some years ago in connection with coloured petrol and that sort of thing.
The second argument was the argument that even if one did not stand on that particular point, we could not afford it this year. This was a further reason that he put forward for appealing to the Committee to reject this proposal. I thought that he produced something of an argument so far as exports are concerned. But I feel—and I base myself on the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens)—that there is an important point of principle here. We are here talking not about fuels, not about oil used as fuel, not about a sumptuary tax, but about the raw material of an industry—and, what is more, the raw material of an industry which will probably have to play a bigger part in exports in years to come.
4.45 p.m.
This is a new industry; there are many new developments. The chemical industry is based on oil. There are revolutionary changes in paints and finishes which may have a very big part to play in the future. Is it night that this industry, unlike most others, should have to pay tax on this basic raw material? We do not tax coal, steel, raw cotton, or raw wool. As I understand, oil in the industries which we are discussing plays something like the same part as many of those materials play in other industries. On those grounds, I think that there is a good point of principle in the suggestion that this tax is wrong.
The point has been made that we are facing acute competition abroad. I do not know what decision will be reached in connection with the Common Market, but, certainly, anything which places a handicap on our exporters, despite all this rather complicated drawback procedure, is something on which this Committee ought to take action. We all know that the industrial costs to the community are affected not by the export industries themselves, but by other factors which have an indirect effect. Imports from other countries into Britain have an effect. We want our industries to be able to compete on a fair basis with other industries abroad.
One of the most alarming things about our balance of payments position in the last two or three years, apart from the invisible earnings problem to which I have drawn attention in other debates, is the fact that we have this

substantial increase in imports of goods which we manufacture ourselves, the fact that our industries are failing to meet foreign competition on the home market, and, therefore, in terms of balance of payments we must think in terms not only of exports, but of ability to compete at home.
On those grounds, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, and, now that the arguments have been fully set out, that they will say that they will consider this proposal before the Report stage of the Bill. If not, I think I shall feel disposed to recommend my hon. Friends to vote for this Clause on the ground, in principle, that we ought not to be taxing the raw materials of industry.

Mr. Barber: I did not wish to delay the Committee before, but, so far as the incidence of this duty is concerned, I think that it will be agreed that it has, on the whole, minor effects on production and productive costs, and certainly on retail prices.
The light oil duty amounts to about 1½d. a car tyre, or ·15 per cent. of the selling price. For rubber Wellingtons it is about ½d. a pair; tennis balls 1½d. a dozen, and so on. Then it goes up to the sort of case where it is more significant, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend—the question of paints, where, I am informed, it is about 3d. a pint, or up to 5 per cent. of the selling price.
Consequently, this is not a very important matter from the point of view of its incidence on the price, but I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that that does not affect the point of principle, and it is undoubtedly true that to some extent, however limited it may be, the United Kingdom industry is at a disadvantage compared with overseas industries which are allowed some concession of the nature mentioned by my hon. Friends. For the reasons I have given, I cannot, in fairness, promise to consider the matter between now and Report. I should be misleading the Committee if I gave any such indication.
However, having in mind the cost involved, which precludes me from advising the Committee to accept the new Clause this year, or from considering it further, I can say that this is a matter which my right hon. and learned


Friend has in mind and will consider in the months to come. I am sorry that I cannot go further now. I hope that the right hon. Member for Huyton will accept what I have said in the genuine spirit in which it is meant. This is a matter which deserves further consideration in the future.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has been quite straight with us in what he said. He did not raise any false hopes. I thought that he took some of the figures of cost a little lightly. Some of them which he gave seemed quite heavy and significant. He has not dealt with the argument that, in principle, we should not tax the raw materials of industry. I know that different views are held in different parts of the Committee about it.
When we debated Clause 2, although the Chancellor gave way on horticulture, we were told that it was not meant to be a precedent—what were the words?—the Chancellor said that it must not be regarded as the thin end of the wedge. I am sure that no one knowing either the Chancellor or myself would ever regard either of us as the thin end of the wedge.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to intervene at this point on a matter which, though it does not affect the discussion immediately before us, I regard as of some importance. Hon. Members are being extremely inconvenienced by a party which seems to be going on in the Members' Dining Room as a result of which all the furniture from the Members' Dining Room has been put in the corridors so that it very difficult for me and other hon. Members to get to our lockers. The only way that we can do it is by acting as furniture removers ourselves.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): It is not a matter for this Committee, but I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms if he will look into it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. It has frequently been held to be a matter within the direction

of Mr. Speaker or whoever is in authority in the Chair at the particular moment. We have had many examples of such occasions in recent times. I suggest that, if hon. Members are really being impeded by the use of accommodation by strangers, that is a matter which the Serjeant at Arms should check.

The Temporary Chairman: I said that I would ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter.

Mr. Wilson: I recall previous occasions during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, Mr. Arbuthnot, particularly the night of November 17th, 1955, when there was a famous all-night sitting, when a great deal of the time of the Committee was taken by a similar point of inconvenience outside the Chamber and, in the end, rather more slowly than in your case, if I may say so, the decision was taken to send the Serjeant at Arms to produce a report.
After about half an hour of points of order, the point was admitted and the matter was dealt with. The Serjeant at Arms reported. I think that we are grateful to you, Mr. Arbuthnot, for ruling in accordance with that precedent immediately my hon. Friend raised the matter, so that we shall not lose more time than necessary.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it a mass meeting of public relations officers, or what is it that is going on?

Mr. Wilson: I am not informed about that. Perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will report in due course. I return now to the subject of our discussion.
I was saying that the Chancellor, when he gave the concession to horticulture on Clause 2, did not, I think, make the point that that was for industrial use. It was a use by industry of an important fuel. On the other hand, we have ourselves made various proposals about sheep dip and other things where an industrial raw material was used—creosote, and so forth—and, in accordance with that attitude taken consistently over the years, I think that we are right to press the point on behalf of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and say that this is a question affecting an industrial


raw material. The Economic Secretary having been quite straight with us about it, we have no alternative but to support the new Clause in the Lobby.

Mr. Stevens: Clearly, there is something wrong in the Committee this afternoon, because I find myself so much in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has been saying, not least when he remarked that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary seemed to look rather too lightly upon small price differences. A motor car is an assembly of components. The motor car manufacturer buys each component in the cheapest market. He looks at even a 1½d. a tyre as quite an important part of any aggregate saving which he may make on the various components. However, I do not wish to labour that point, though I hope that my hon. Friend will not look upon small price differences quite so lightly as he appeared to do a few minutes ago. As he said, we are

moving into a period of ever-narrowing profit margins, and we cannot afford to overlook even small price differences of that sort.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has today, more, perhaps, than was done five years ago, appreciated the importance of the point. I think that he is fully seized of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Huyton about raw materials for industry. He has held out an invitation to us to come to see him about export drawbacks. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

The Temporary Chairman: Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 256.

Division No. 215.]
AYES
[4.56 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
MacColl, James


Albu, Austen
Ginsburg, David
McInnes, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Awbery, Stan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Blyton, William
Grimond, J.
Mapp, Charles


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mason, Roy


Bowles, Frank
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Mellish, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Healey, Denis
Milne, Edward J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Monslow, Walter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moody, A. S.


Callaghan, James
Hilton, A. V.
Morris, John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Holman, Percy
Mort, D. L.


Chapman, Donald
Holt, Arthur
Moyle, Arthur


Chetwynd, George
Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, Frederick


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.


Darling, George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Dodds, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Prentice, R. E.


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.


Edelman, Maurice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John


Edwards. Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Redhead, E. C.


Evans, Albert
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rhodes, H.


Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fitch, Alan
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Logan, David
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McCann, John
Ross, William




Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Swingler, Stephen
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Sylvester, George
White, Mrs. Eirene


Short, Edward
Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Small, William
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Sorensen, R. W.
Timmons, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Tomney, Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Spriggs, Leslie
Wade, Donald
Woof, Robert


Steele, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Watkins, Tudor



Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Duthie, Sir William
Leather, E. H. C.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Eden, John
Leavey, J. A.


Allason, James
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leburn, Gilmour


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Balniel, Lord
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Barber, Anthony
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Martin


Barlow, Sir John
Farr, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barter, John
Fell, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John


Batsford, Brian
Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Baxter. Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert


Bell, Ronald
Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Berkeley, Humphry
Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Stephen


Bidgood, John C.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacArthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, J. B.
McLaren, Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Bishop, F. P.
Cower, Raymond
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bossom, Clive
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Marshall, Douglas


Bourne-Arton, A.
Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Box, Donald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Mawby, Ray


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Morgan, William


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John


Brooman-White, R.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nabarro, Gerald


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bryan, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Michael


Buck, Antony
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Nugent, Sir Richard


Bullard, Denys
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Partridge, E.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Chichester-Clark, R
Hocking, Philip N.
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cole, Norman
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cordle, John
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pott, Percivall


Corfield, F. V.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Coulson, J. M.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Jackson, John
Ramsden, James


Dance, James
James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Sir Keith
Renton, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Rippon, Geoffrey







Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Robson Brown, Sir William
Tapsell, Peter
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Webster, David


Roots, William
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Teeling, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Temple, John M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Seymour, Leslie
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Sharpies, Richard
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Shaw, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wise, A. R.


Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Smithers, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Spearman, Sir Alexander
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woollam, John


Speir, Rupert
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Worsley, Marcus


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Storey, Sir Samuel
Walder, David
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison and


Studholme, Sir Henry
Walker, Peter
Mr. Peel.


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wall, Patrick

New Clause.—(NON-FERROUS METAL MINES IN UNITED KINGDOM: RELIEF FROM PROFITS TAX.)

(1) Profits of a trade commenced after the passing of this Act and consisting of or including the working of a non-ferrous metal mine situated within the United Kingdom, being profits arising from the working of the mine and so arising during a period of thirty-six months, beginning with the day on which the mine is first brought into commercial operation, shall be exempt from the profits tax.

(2) For the purposes of this section a mine shall be deemed to be brought into commercial operation as soon as substantial quantities of ore are extracted from the mine for any treatment and for disposal; and such substantial quantities shall not be taken to include ore extracted in the course of searching for, discovering or testing mineral deposits or winning access thereto.—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the other new Clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—(Non-ferrous metal mines in United Kingdom; relief from income tax).

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: On a point of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) did not move his new Clause—(Income Tax: non-ferrous metal mines in United Kingdom)—last night I understood then that we should be free to debate it today on this new Clause.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. I was going to make the same point myself. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) did not move his new Clause last night. It was a very late hour, and I tried to safeguard the position by asking your predecessor in

the Chair, Mr. Arbuthnot, whether he agreed that when this new Clause was called, we could debate that one at the same time, and he gave that assurance.

The Temporary Chairman: That sounds quite reasonable.

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The question whether this debate takes place on the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin or on the new Clause which I am now moving is to some extent academic. We are all concerned with the same point, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Bodmin and I myself will be making the same speeches that we would have made had the new Clause been discussed last night.
The purpose of the new Clause is to provide special tax treatment for a single industry, and, therefore, I think it is incumbent upon whoever moves it to prove a special case for such treatment, as it is unusual to ask for special treatment for an industry. That case, however, is that in the national interest it ought to be done, since we are facing a world shortage of tin, and today's headlines underline the timeliness of this debate. It will mean serious economic problems for this country, and it is, therefore, vital that we should take all possible measures to develop the tin resources of this country.
The second reason is that, because of the peculiar difficulties and risks of tin mining, due to the disposition of the metal by nature, special tax concessions are required. These are the two main reasons for advocating what normally all of us would hesitate to do—special tax treatment for a single industry—and I


should like to deal with each of those two points.
First, there is the world shortage of tin. The Committee will be aware that for some time the price of tin has been right up to the ceiling level of £880 fixed under the International Tin Agreement. There has been talk for some time that the ceiling price would have to be raised to £1,000. As hon. Members will know, while we were sitting yesterday the price burst through the ceiling and it is now officially admitted that there is no tin left in the buffer stocks of this very important International Tin Agreement. This is important, because it is not just the result of a short-term market factor. Speculation in tin in the old sense has been made impossible by the existence of the Agreement, and what is going on is a reflection of basic facts about a world tin shortage.
We are facing a world shortage of tin this year and, I should have thought, probably for many years to come. The only short-term hope that can be put forward lies in sales from the United States strategic stock pile. That could make an immediate difference but obviously it is not a solution to the long-term problem. This year the estimated world production, excluding Russia and China, for which the figures are rather difficult to obtain, is 140,000 to 150,000 tons. Estimated world consumption, excluding the same two countries, is 173,000 tons. This makes very little allowance for increased consumption in America this year as industrial recovery gathers momentum. The gap between production and consumption could easily be 30,000 tons or more.
The problem for us—this is what is relevant to the new Clause—is whether this is a temporary situation. It is proposed in our new Clause and in the hon. Gentleman's two new Clauses that there should be special tax treatment for the tin industry to encourage the expansion of production of this metal within this country. This is why I am spending a little more time than I otherwise would have done in deploying the case that this is not a temporary shortage.
Consumption is rising very, very sharply all over the world while production, on the whole, is declining. The consumption of West Germany in 1958

was 9,800 tons, in 1959, 16,850 tons, and in 1960, 27,750 tons. This year it will probably be over 30,000 tons. These figures show a threefold increase in three years. It can be seen, therefore, that we will need all the tin that can be produced, including the perhaps rather small contribution which this country can make. How far the German figures which I have given include some leakage through the control to East Germany, I should not like to say. It is one of those endearing practices in which West Germany indulges at the moment when it is preaching to us against even legitimate trade with East Germany. As I have said, taking that one country, consumption of tin has more than trebled in three years.
Looking at the world picture, we must expect a big increase in consumption year by year by Russia and China. Russia's annual consumption per head is 0·18 lb. per annum, less than one-fifth of our consumption in this country. With Russia's steadily rising industrial production, we must expect its tin consumption this year to rise at least proportionately. In view of the growth of consumer industries, of which many of us saw evidence on visits to Russia, tin consumption is likely to rise more than proportionately with industrial consumption. If it grows at only half the present British level per head, the world will need another 24,000 tons of tin. That would be equivalent to increasing this year's supply by about one-sixth to meet the additional requirements of Russia alone. As soon as China, where consumption per bead is only 0·02 lb. per head per annum, one-forty-fifth of ours, begins to develop its industries seriously, its potential demand for tin will be enormous.
All the experts agree that there is a big prospective world shortage of tin, not just for this year, but for many years to come. On 8th June The Times stated:
The only hope for the industry seems to be to encourage marginal producers to open their mines up again".
That phrase is directly relevant to this new Clause, because we are talking about marginal producers in this country who are governed by our tax system.
If The Times is right in saying this—I think that it is—where are we to


expect tin production to develop? I think that hon. Members will agree that increased production will not come from Malaya, where the first four months of this year produced less than 26,000 tons compared with 28,000 tons in the previous four months. Malaya is slowly getting worked out of tin. Bolivia is not even reaching its quota for tin production, the quota which was in operation during the restriction period. Hon. Members may have reservations about the likely output of tin from Congo mines. One would be very doubtful I think, certainly on economic grounds, about expecting a marked rise in production in Indonesia. Shipments from the Soviet Union to the West are falling. I speak subject to correction, but I cannot see a single source in any part of the world to which one can turn with any real hope of getting the increased production of tin which the world will need.
5.15 p.m.
In its summing up of this issue of 24th May, The Times said:
Under the impact of the prevailing high prices, production this year, in spite of the losses in the Congo, might still be brought nearer the potential output, but if requirements are to be met over the next few years a major expansion in the world's developed tin resources must be ensured.
This is a question, not of a few months but of a few years ahead.
Such development work will inevitably take time and the delay may assume dangerous proportions unless suitable legal, administrative, technical, and economic preconditions can be secured in the most promising producing regions.
It goes on to say:
…after three decades of stagnation there is no more time to be lost; today's meeting of the International Tin Council must open a new chapter in the collaboration to ensure adequate supplies of tin.
Having given this evidence of a prospective world shortage, the consequences for Britain will be clear. First, there is a danger of an absolute shortage, of a real absence of the tin that we may need to ensure full employment and the maintenance of our export trade. There is a danger—I do not think that anyone would make light of this—that within a year or two we may be in a position where we cannot get enough tin to keep our tin-using industries going. I do not think that anyone would deny that. With a prospective world shortage and the

kind of price movements that we have seen in the last twenty-four hours, it is clear that Britain may have to pay a good deal more for her tin imports. One can see the effect of this on the terms of trade and our balance of payments. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree that our balance of payments is in no state to stand any further adverse factors which can be avoided by action which can be taken by this Committee.
There is a third and rather special problem which I think hon. Members will agree is a real problem. If a world shortage develops, we may not get the raw metal which will be needed for use in the British-owned smelters. If a world shortage develops countries like Nigeria and others which are building their own smelters may say, "Our own smelters must come first. We have not any raw material left over foe, shipment to Britain". Anxieties have been expressed about this by some of our principal tin smelting interests in this country. It is the sort of thing which has happened in past years in connection with hides. The leather industries ensured that they did not go short of hides and there were difficulties of shipments of hides on reasonable terms to this country. In a year or two we may find smelters in this country standing idle and we shall be forced to import, not the raw material, but the much more expensive refined metal. That will put an additional burden on our balance of payments.
Therefore, scanning the world horizon for some new or expanding source of supply and, for my part, finding none in prospect—it may be that hon. Members will put me right on this—the question is whether we should reverse the tide of economic history of the past hundred years concerning tin mining and, once again, develop mines in this country.
I do not need to take up the time of hon. Members by referring to the very long history of tin mining in this country, going back to pre-history. Trading in tin provided the first contact between the original inhabitants of these islands and the outside world. The Phoenicians, the Hebrews and the Romans came to trading posts on Scilly and in Cornwall and, in so far as that history is recorded, it provides an extremely fascinating story


for all who are interested in those parts of the world.
There was great development with the Industrial Revolution, reaching its peak about the 1870s when this country produced an annual output of 9,650 tons a year. Then we got the tide moving in the opposite direction. Largely with Cornish money and certainly with a lot of Cornish skill, Malaya was developed as an alternative source of supply—it was cheaper. The Cornish industry began its long decline and we have now got back to nothing like the position of the 1870s. By the turn of the century, production was down to half of what it was in the mid-1870s and Cornwall almost ceased to have a tin mining industry. There are now two main companies, admittedly large, and the country's output is about 1,200 tons a year, less than 1 per cent. of world supply and only about one-eighth of what it was in the peak period some seventy or eighty years ago.
It is clear that we need international interest to develop home production. It is more than arguable that we are, or shall be, internationally committed to do everything in our power to increase home producton. The Financial Secretary will no doubt have studied the International Tin Agreement and will have seen Article 13, which deals with this problem. We are signatories and custodians of the International Tin Agreement, of which Article 13 says:
If the Council considers that a serious shortage of tin is likely to develop, it may make recommendations to the participating countries:
(i) with a view to ensuring the maximum development of production in the producing countries…
We are a producing country. Have any such recommendations come from the Tin Council? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us. I doubt whether they have come yet, but are Her Majesty's Government ready with their answer if there is a panic call, if there is a clarion call, from the Tin Council to all producing countries to do all that they can to increase production?
Having proved the need for increased production by this country—I do not want to over-state the case, for even if it were doubled or trebled it would still be only a small proportion of total world consumption, although that is no argument

for not doing it—there will be no argument but that tin does exist in substantial and winnable quantities beneath our soil. That is beyond doubt.
There will be no argument about the the fact that finance is prepared to come in. I understand that some of the big Malayan companies are now prepared to invest in production in this country because of the working out of deposits in Malaya. Here we see the possibility of an interesting reversal of the economic trend of the 1870s and 1880s which at that time had such a devastating effect on the Cornish tin industry.
There is no argument but that we have the skill and technique in this country to develop the industry and, on the facts I have given, there can be no argument but that we face a shortage, so that there should be no argument about this being one of the very few indigenous raw materials which we have, a raw material in conditions of a prospective world shortage.
We cannot afford to neglect our own resources. The problem lies in the taxation provisions, having regard to two problems. The first is the uniquely difficult problem of prospecting, despite the help given by the Finance Act, 1945. The second is the high cost of shaft sinking and development.
The prospecting problem relates to the way nature has disposed of the tin. If there are any hon. Members who are not aware of the peculiar problems of the tin industry, they may ask what is the special problem about it and why it is different from coal, gypsum or clay, or any of the other minerals found below our soil.
It is the fact that, despite the difficulties of faultings and so on, deposits of coal, gypsum, ironstone or salt on the whole are fairly easily provable. One puts down a borehole and can be fairly certain that over quite wide areas deposits will be found and in what thickness they will be found. I know that with coal there are grievous disappointments as the result of faultings, but, by and large, with minerals such as anhydrite, of which there has been a big development in Cumberland, one can be fairly certain about what one finds. With metal bearing lodes, the amount of metal found from place to place just cannot be


predicted accurately, and one cannot do very much about it by sinking boreholes.
Therefore, as the equivalent in tin mining to what would be simple bore-holes in other industries, one has to go in for a very expensive amount of shaft sinking and tunnelling, both slaw and costly operations, with no question of any profit while they are going on. At the end of the day, one might find results which were extremely disappointing and the whole of the money might be lost and there might not be any tin. That happens quite frequently.
When the ore is found, there is further delay and further expenditure on machinery and equipment and treatment plant before one can begin to sell. Even when in production, there are still problems about maintaining supplies on a sufficient scale to provide what might be called really commercial operations. That is why all three Clauses stress the start of really commercial operations.
There are the two problems, first of finding the tin and then, having found it, of getting to the point of production. In both cases this industry can claim certain unique qualities, or disadvantages, which provide us with the case for unique tax treatment.
The Clause I have moved in effect suggests a tax holiday. In other countries, in Canada and Eire, for example, the position is that complete exemption is provided from Income Tax and Profits Tax on new mining undertakings for the first three years from the commencement of regular production. Canada also has generous allowances for the depletion of ore reserves, but since that raises a question which is taken up by another new Clause, which is not to be called, I cannot go into it now.
I am not suggesting, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin and his colleagues are not suggesting, that this is the only way in which to do it, or the perfect way. We know that the Government could produce powerful arguments about these Clauses. I am in no doubt about that. But if they cannot accept these proposals, I hope that they will tell us what they are prepared to accept.
There are several possibilities. One might he that the unrecouped losses of operators, both as regards prospecting

and the first few years of production, should be carried forward against subsequent profits, making full allowance for exploration and sinking. If the Chancellor cannot accept these proposals, I hope that he will say that he is prepared to look at that as an alternative.
Hon. Members will remember that this proposal was put forward by the very important Committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) shortly after the war. That Committee produced one of the most important Reports produced in the immediate post-war days. This was the Committee on Mineral Development known as the Westwood Committee, Hon. Members will have read its Report—I am sure that the Chancellor is familiar with it—in Cmd. 7732. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation was a member of that Committee, although he produced a memorandum of reservations. But paragraph 343, I think it is, of that Report, summarising Recommendation No. 4 (ii), provides proposals about taxation rather on the lines which I have been indicating.
Here we get this powerful Committee, representing geologists and industrialists, the then Director of the Royal School of Mines, economists, mining engineers and all the rest, coming forward and suggesting that the losses incurred during the early years of operation of a mining concern should be carried forward and charged against the first profits available with no limit on the period during which they can be carried forward.
5.30 p.m.
That is one alternative to the method we are here putting forward. I hope that the Chancellor when announcing that he is accepting this Clause will also feel, having regard to the very grave situation which I have outlined, that it is now high time that the Government should accept the other recommendation of the Westwood Committee. We find it in paragraph 433 calling upon the Government to institute a complete mineral survey over the whole country. It is a scandal that in this highly-developed country we do not know what lies a few feet below our soil.
I remember during the war when the various Ministers Sir—Andrew Duncan in particular—were talking about opencast mining, some of the geological


experts said that it would be no good, that at best we should not even get 5 million tons. During the period of working opencast mining we have had over 100 million tons. It is obvious that we may have great mineral wealth in other directions which we have not explored.
While the purpose of the Clause is to make it possible for private enter-rise to do more than it is doing at present, this does not absolve the Government from one of their basic responsibilities, of instituting a real mineral resources survey. It is the first thing that we should suggest for an underdeveloped country. It is fantastic that we have not done it here. If it were done it would ease the task of some of the private operators in Cornwall. I am, therefore, making it clear—I hope that I carry with me hon. Members opposite who are responsible for these other Clauses—that we are not necessarily prejudiced in favour of any particular form of words. I should be only too delighted if the Financial Secretary, while accepting the basic argument which we are putting forward, would say that he is going to draft proposals in his own words or, perhaps, find a satisfactory alternative.
It is a fact that the Clause is not new. It has been tabled and moved a number of times in past years by the hon. Member for Bodmin. I think that the hon. Gentleman may claim without any challenge to be the father and author of the Clause. I am not going back to the very first time that he moved it. I think that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew)—was he not the hon. Member for Camborne before 1945?—was active in moving a not dissimilar Clause even during the war. So there is nothing very new about it. But what is new, and I think that the whole Committee will agree, is the very desperate sense of urgency as far as the world tin shortage is concerned.
I am not going back to the debates of 1943, but just to two debates. On 19th June, 1956, the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He replied to a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bodmin and this is what he said:

I will, of course, gladly give the assurance to all my hon. Friends, who I know are very interested, that we will consider whether further assistance of any kind can be given towards the exploitation of these mineral resources if it is right and wise to do so, but I honestly feel, and I think that those who study our taxation system would agree, that the method suggested is not one that would stand up to the pressure which might be put upon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 1398.]
Fair enough. The present Chancellor then said that this particular form of Clause was wrong in terms of our taxation system, but he gave an undertaking that the Government would consider alternative ways of helping the industry, and that was at a time when there was no imminent shortage of tin as there is today. The matter was debated again in 1959 and the then Economic Secretary, now Minister of State, Board of Trade, said this, referring to the debate in 1956:
My right hon. Friend did, however, say that he would consider whether further assistance of any kind could be given towards the exploitation of mineral resources. That consideration has since been made and the whole question has been further examined. The Government, however, have decided that they could not agree to a discriminatory form of taxation relief such as that proposed, which is quite foreign to our United Kingdom tax system and quite unrelated to the capital expended. I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, whom I would very much like to have been able to meet, but on this occasion I am sorry to say that we cannot accept his Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 1179.]
What was said by both Ministers in those debates was that they could not accept the Clause. I should not be surprised if the Financial Secretary says the same about this Clause, but I hope that he will not and that he will tell us the results of the inquiry and consideration promised by the Prime Minister as long ago as 19th June, 1956. The right hon. Gentleman felt this urgency then, and that was when there was no shortage. At the present time there is this very serious shortage. I think we all agree that it would not be good enough for him to say that this is not the right way to do it, but that we shall consider what might have been done between now and the next time that we debate it in, say, 1964.
I hope that he will tell us that the Government have considered the matter since 1956 and have reached a conclusion and, more particularly, that the Government are deeply anxious about


the tin position in the light of events of the last twenty-four hours. Even if the Government have not been moving in the matter since 1956, I hope that they have been stirred into activity by the events of the last twenty-four hours—by the breakdown of the tin agreement. This shows the clear obligation of all the participating countries to encourage alternative sources of production.
I do not care whether the hon. Gentleman accepts the Clause that we have put down or the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin. They are not very dissimilar. I do not care whether he is going to accept neither so long as he tells us that he is going to redraft another which, no doubt, will be more elegantly expressed. We shall be delighted if he does that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin will be as well. I do not really care if he says that he cannot accept anything in this form so long as he tells us that the Government are going to bring other proposals forward. I certainly hope that he is going to do one of these things.
I hope also that he is going to see the Chancellor, or whichever Minister is now responsible—the Minister of Housing, the President of the Board of Trade; I do not know who is going to implement the proposals which began with the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington several years ago and the setting up of the Committee—and is going to say that we shall have a full-dress survey for the country. Although we all realise the fundamental importance of exports in our present position, we all recognise, I think, that the ability of this country to solve all its problems purely by exporting is getting more and more restricted. We are facing a very heavy import problem. It is not autarchic in the real sense of the word but it is in the highest national interest that we should do more to develop more of our internal resources as well as do all we can to export and pay for the goods which we import. There is a very great obligation on any Government, of whichever party, to see that that policy is followed.
This Clause does not relate only to tin. It could relate to copper or to a large number of unfamiliar metals which are becoming household words in many

industries and which might be brought forward in increasing quantity as a result either of the survey which I have mentioned or the adoption of some Clause similar to this.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will answer that they do take the tin shortage seriously, that they are concerned with developing home production of other metals and minerals where the production can be made more economic, and that they do not propose, because of perhaps outdated ideas of where our materials might come from, to allow this essential development, essential for this country and, I believe, for the world, to be held back any longer by systems of taxation which may have been appropriate in their day but are certainly not appropriate to the world mineral shortage we are now facing. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will either accept this Clause or indicate pretty clearly what the Government otherwise intend to do.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The first thing I should like to do is to thank the Chair very much indeed for allowing the original Clause which I put down to be considered with this one moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). As he rightly said, the difference between the two Clauses is really of no importance at all. The difference between the two Clauses is purely whether their provisions should become operative in April, as I proposed, or when the Bill becomes an Act, as is proposed in this new Clause. As I have been trying for sixteen years to get this done, I do not really think that four months longer to wait for the Clause to become operative is of such very great importance.
I should like to thank also the right hon. Gentleman for two things, first of all, for so generously referring to myself and to the number of years in which I have tried to get Members of this Committee interested in such a Clause as this; and, secondly, for putting so expertly and reasonably the case which both he and I wish to make.
The difficulty about it, I think, is really this. When my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew), then Member for Camborne, in 1943 and 1944 raised this matter, and


when I first raised it in this Chamber in 1946, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, was, as one could undoubtedly feel, sympathetic towards and interested in the proposition and the principle of the matter, yet it did not in any way excite or move hon. Members because there was still a certain degree of thinking that this was in some way a local matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton—and for this I am extremely thankful—stressed its national significance.
It is only by accident that it so happens that that mineral in particular which may be in abundance in this country happens to lie in the area which I and certain of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Mr. Hayman) opposite are privileged to represent. Tin, in particular, as is known to all hon. Members of this Committee, has played a very important part not only in the material welfare of this country in days gone by but in the building up of the material wealth and the civilisation of Europe as well.
5.45 p.m.
It is fair to say that from the start a shortage of tin was foreseen. In particular, I refer to the speech made in 1956 by the late Lord Jowitt on this very point. He was then drawing the attention of the country to the coming shortage of tin in the world. That was in 1956. In order to refresh my memory I was rereading his speech in the last day or two. This is now becoming much more crystal clear. Indeed, attention is being focussed upon it more and more, and more specially, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton has just said, in the last day or two have people now begun to realise that this is a fact.
What one has got to think about is this. I have no intention of quoting all the different speeches I have made here upon this subject, but the answers which have been given from the Treasury Bench have always formed more or less one simple pattern. They have either said, after the Royal Commission mentioned it, that this proposal has not met with approval by the Royal Commission, or they have said that, if they carried out this proposal, pressures would come upon them from other sources for

similar assistance and those pressures would be too great to resist. Sometimes they have argued in this fashion. They said it in 1945.
I remember speaking to the then Sir John Anderson at that time about it—he had helped a little in the 1945 Finance Bill. They did that again in 1952. My right hon. Friend who is now the Home Secretary also helped. But what they have failed to understand is that, although they offered help, nothing of any sort came of it because that particular form of help is not, in my view, the right pattern, nor is it sufficient in order to promote the adventure of winning this metal from our hills.
It seems strange to me that, in spite of the abilities of this Chancellor and past Chancellors—abilities which I, at any rate, certainly admire—past Chancellors and, it may be, this one too, appear in some way or another to have felt greater fear of finding themselves unable to resist pressures than concern with making use of the wealth which lies in these hills.
To buttress my own opinion, and to give some comfort to the present Chancellor and support to any change of heart which may lie in him, I would suggest that he looks around the world to see how other finance ministers taking part in government in other countries are concerned with the operations of mining and with mineral wealth.
When one gazes at the great panorama of the world one finds that in every instance where success has resulted from the action of the Treasury Bench in the countries concerned a similar pattern to that which we are now suggesting has appeared in the legislation of that Dominion or country. This has happened in Australia, in Canada, and in the United States, where it is true the pattern is slightly different. I cannot help but think that somehow the Chancellor, who is doing the Committee the courtesy of listening to the debate, must have a thought for the point which I am making.
Up to the moment when Eire had no legislation of the kind that we are now suggesting, her mineral wealth was no more developed than it is now being developed in this country, but Canadian operators approached the Treasury in Eire and discussed the matter with those who knew what they were talking about.


In a short while legislation was passed through the Eire Parliament of the kind that the right hon. Member for Huyton and I ask the Chancellor to take into account today. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that the mines in Eire have been opened and operated profitably and that exploitation of that country's mineral wealth is taking place.
I cannot conceive that fear of doing something because that might prevent one resisting doing something else is a factor that should weigh in consideration of this matter. It is difficult to think of a time when this country, with its vast population and its standards of living, will not be fairly precariously balanced in the economic sense, and we must not forget that the country's real wealth is not very great and that our main basic raw materials are china clay, coal, and tin.
I feel very strongly on this subject, and I ask the Chancellor to answer the debate in some way or other and to indicate not only that he realises the position but that he will accept either my Clause or that in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton or, alternatively, will accept neither and will himself frame a Clause on somewhat similar lines in time for the Report stage. If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot do that, and if he thinks that the risk of resisting our request is greater than the consideration of the national wealth that is hidden in our hills, I have only one thing to do. It is to go into the Lobby against him.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) and to say particularly how much I have appreciated my right hon. Friend's powerful and comprehensive speech. It was a moving speech for me particularly, as a Cornishman whose family on his mother's side has lived in Cornwall for centuries and whose grandfather was a Cornish tin miner and, I expect, his people long before him.
It must be realised that tin is a precious commodity in the world today, but to find it nowadays it is necessary to go very deep below the surface of the earth. The hon. Member for

Bodmin spoke of our Cornish hills, but the tin mines operated today will be working at depths twice the height of our highest hills, and, moreover, working in granite.

Mr. H. Wilson: And under the sea, too.

Mr. Hayman: Yes. And the vein of tin or lode may be very small, perhaps no more than the thickness of a man's thumb. Fancy searching for a lode of that kind from the surface down through granite to a depth of 2,000 or 2,500 ft. It is true that when the tin is found it is a very profitable enterprise, but the risk to capital involved in searching for tin in Cornwall is very high. Nevertheless, there are two mines working now, Geevor in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and South Crofty in my constituency. They are working at great depth and at a profit, although in the case of South Crofty it has been a rather uncertain one in recent years.
The Report of the Westwood Committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has already been mentioned. That Committee made one specific recommendation in its Report, that some help should be given to the South Crofty mine situated in what the Committee described as the most highly mineralised zone on earth.
Tin provided a considerable proportion of the revenue for Charles I during the Civil War, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton pointed out, it produced considerable revenue for the country in the last century. Indeed, two centuries ago Cornwall was the copper belt of Europe. The copper mines have been exhausted for a century now. I suppose that there is no hope of finding more copper, but the experts are convinced that tin still lies below the earth's surface in the county and that probably it will be found below many of the exhausted copper mines. Some mines in the past which were producing copper were eventually found to contain tin below it, and they continued to be mined for tin with great profit for many years.
I think that with all these points in mind the Chancellor must realise that financiers and others who are prepared


to risk capital to search for tin in Cornwall ought to have the benefit of some tax remission on the lines suggested in the Clause. This may be new to this country, but the country is now facing one of the greatest financial crises in its history and undoubtedly the reserves of tin in the world are limited. There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for granting some tax concession on the lines of this Clause.
6.0 p.m.
My constituency is an area of local unemployment which is entitled to the benefits of the Local Employment Act, though it is true that we are not getting many of them. Consequently, there is all the more reason why the Chancellor should give sympathetic consideration to the Clause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton mentioned that the smelters in this country might go out of business if they were unable to be supplied with sufficient tin. It reminded me that forty years ago there were in my town of Redruth two tin smelters. The last of the two closed down in 1931. I know what the closing down of smelters means. In Redruth during the 'thirties our average unemployment rate was 33 per cent. We know what unemployment means in my area, and it was due in the main to the collapse of the tin industry after the First World War.
As I have said, the geologists, mining engineers and other experts seem to be convinced that tin is still present in considerable quantities below the surface in Cornwall. I feel that it is to the discredit of Britain that the recommendation of the Westwood Committee for the setting up of a mineral resources survey has never been carried out. It could be carried out in Cornwall, and I am sure that the money would not be wasted. We could point to a great deal of expenditure by the Government in recent years which has been wasted, but I will not go into that.
There is another point linked to this, and that is that at Camborne we have a School of Mines which has turned out many famous mining engineers since before the beginning of the century. Mining engineers trained at Camborne are to be found now in almost every mining camp in the world just as not long ago one

would have found Cornish miners in mining camps in all parts of the world.
I beg the Chancellor to look at this matter in a broad way and to give it his sympathetic consideration. This is a great opportunity. The price of tin has risen today to a point where profitability comes soundly into the picture. As my right hon. Friend has said, the main sources of tin production in the world are lessening, and sources seem to be declining in Malaya. We have an opportunity to bring a larger tin mining industry back to Cornwall.

Mr. G. Wilson: I am very glad to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) in the Clause he mentioned, which is very similar to the one moved by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).
Although I have no working tin mines in my constituency now, part of the old Cornish mining division is included in it, which gives my constituency a special interest in tin. I have always been very glad to support proposals on these lines which my hon. Friend has been putting forward for a number of years, not only because the motto of Cornwall is "One and all", but because they seem to be common sense.
There are six points about Cornish tin mining which are beyond dispute. First, it is clear that Cornish tin mining did not decline because supplies of tin ran out. It declined because cheaper forms of production were devised elsewhere, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as the alluvial extraction in Malaya. Secondly, it is beyond dispute that, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Mr. Hayman) pointed out, there are still considerable quantities of tin in Cornwall.
Thirdly, we all know that the price of tin is high and that a shortage of the metal is beginning to appear in other places. Fourthly, Britain is importing large quantities of the metal, and it is obvious that if that volume of imports could be diminished even a little by the production of tin here it certainly would be no bad influence upon our balance of imports and exports.
Fifthly, since Cornwall tends to be an area of local unemployment, therefore to add another basic industry to a county which has too few basic industries would


be a very good thing. It would be very useful from the employment point of view if we could have a revival of tin mining. We have china clay, mining machinery, ship repairing, agriculture, fishing and tourism, and that is about the lot, and it is rather a short list for a county with such a substantial population.
Sixthly, we should remember that for by far the greater part of the 2,000-year period, during which tin mining has gone on in Cornwall the tin miners were small groups of men who had to rely entirely upon their own physical strength to win and their intuition as to where they would find tin. It is abundantly clear that they have missed many places where there is tin, and there are also many places where there is tin which has not been worked out, which modern methods and machinery could extract. Very limited tin mining is going on in Cornwall at the present time largely because this is a speculative industry and our present system of taxation does not encourage it.
In the debate on the Budget in 1956, the present Minister of State, Board of Trade, replying to the debate, pulled me up because I said that I could never understand why the proposed Clause was not accepted, because it would cost the Chancellor nothing to accept it. There is no development going on at the present time, and if a tax holiday were given for any development that took place the Revenue would lose nothing because it is getting nothing now. I was pulled up for saying that, but I still contend that nothing minus nothing equals nothing. But we hope that with a Clause like this some result would follow, that by adding an inducement we might cause someone to start a speculative enterprise and that some development might follow which would be of benefit to the country for the reasons which have been given. I am very glad to support my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I have three points to put to the Government. First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) upon his very good speech in which he covered the ground very well, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall). I support the plea that

the Government should do something, but I have something rather different to say from what has already been said.
It seems to me that this country will never learn from past experience. One constituent of tin has not yet been mentioned, and that is wolfram, of which 70 per cent. is tungsten, something which is vitally important to us, both in peace and in war. I suggest to the Government that they should read an excellent little book that we have been given called "The Future of Metalliferous Mining in Great Britain" by Mr. Caunter. I shall give some quotations from it which I think are well worth studying. It is time we woke up and realised the importance of this commodity and did something about it, especially in such a time of shortage as the present. In the old days, I understand, it was difficult to separate wolfram from tin, but a constituent of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has perfected a pilot machine which enables it to be done easily by magnetic separation.
It is as well to remember what happened during the last war. The book to which I have referred states:
We were caught short of tungsten in the middle of the last war and at the height of the German submarine campaign.
The author reports a visit by a man from the Ministry of Supply and states:
I was informed of the acute shortage of tungsten and of the very large tonnage needed by the Ministry for war purposes. The figures mentioned were staggering, and with no pre-war preparation or development of our deposits, it was quite impossible to meet the country's needs.
That happened during the last war and in the previous war.
Before the last war, a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Inskip, to whom the fears concerning the situation were reported by the author of this book. The reply was given that only three shiploads were needed. People forget, however, that in war ships get sunk by submarines. Yet we rely upon outside countries for this vitally important material, which we could be developing far more than we are doing in our own country.
The right hon. Member for Huyton asked, in view of all the difficulties in Asia today, how long we could rely upon supplies from countries abroad. Is


it not worth while carrying out a comprehensive survey of our resources? If difficulties of this kind are likely to arise in a conventional war, just think what the situation would be if we were faced with nuclear war, when everything would be at a standstill for six months or more and the country which won in a ghastly holocaust of that nature would be the first to get under way afterwards.
That brings me to my next point. What is the country doing about stockpiling? We know that in the United States a great deal has been done but what are we doing about it? Have we any stockpile or reserve supplies? I do not think so.
My last point concerns uranium, and I make this further quotation from the book to which I have referred. It states:
Madame Curie carried out her experiments on uranium ore obtained from a tin mine near St. Austell in Cornwall".
Uranium is highly important, not only for wartime uses but for such purposes as the cure of cancer. Is any high-powered study being made of this matter to ascertain what deposits we hold in Cornwall, whether they can be worked economically and what is the stockpile situation?
For these and other reasons, I very much hope that the Government will listen to our pleas in this matter and will give this mining industry the support it needs. Even if the Government cannot accept the precise form of the new Clause, let them give us an assurance that they will study this matter and meet us in some way before the Bill is finally passed into law.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should like to intervene briefly in the debate, because we have had some interesting and convincing speeches which might lead my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to believe that there is no need to help the Cornish tin mining industry and that the requirement for its production is now so obvious that any form of assistance is unnecessary.
6.15 p.m.
I should like, briefly, to stress a few points. Why is it difficult to restart Cornish tin mining? We have already been given some of the reasons, but I

should like to give a few more. The first is that it is almost impossible to raise debenture capital on a mine. As distinct from a factory or an office block, if the enterprise fails the assets are practically worthless. In other words, all the capital has to be raised as risk capital. Secondly, the Cornish mineral deposits above sea level are to a large extent worked out. The rich deposits which are waiting to be won are below sea level.
The concomitant is that if a mine has to be closed for any period, it fills with water and the cost of reopening is extravagant. I believe that part of South Crofty had to close after the 1947 fuel crisis. Because the pumps were stopped, flooding resulted and it was not economic to pump the water out.

Mr. Hayman: I am not so sure how serious that was, but certainly, when the mines surrounding South Crofty closed, they were in danger of being flooded out altogether.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is another reason why Cornish tin mining does not attract capital, although It is obvious that a return could be expected on the money invested.
A third factor to which I should like to draw attention is that in so far as risk capital is available for investment in Cornwall, an alternative and very attractive industry is the china clay industry, which currently shows a pleasing return on the capital invested in it. China clay is a means of diverting capital which might otherwise be attracted into Cornish tin mining.
We have had a fairly broad coverage of the reasons why Cornish tin is likely to be in demand. There is an additional reason which has not yet been mentioned. Recently, I read that either the American or the Russian Government have agreed to supply an enormous tin smelting plant to Bolivia, so that that country can refine its own crude tin, which previously has been exported for refining.
I hope that we have covered sufficient reasons why Cornish mining needs initial assistance to get itself going again to convince my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that he would lose nothing if he were to undertake the measures which every speaker in this


debate without exception has pressed upon him and that both the national and the local gain would be valuable and extensive.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I am not at all unsympathetic to the purposes behind the new Clauses. It is common sense that we should attempt to get all the mineral wealth we can from beneath the surface of our own country. I have considered the matter carefully. I saw a deputation which visited me, and I have been thinking of ways in which it would be possible to help the industry. My difficulty is that it already gets a substantial tax holiday.
The following are examples of the existing tax benefits. If the capital required for a new mine was, say, £500,000, of which £200,000 was put into mining works, it would carry investment allowance of 20 per cent. and an initial allowance of 20 per cent. If a further £200,000 were put into plant and machinery, it would carry an investment allowance of 20 per cent. and an initial allowance of 10 per cent. Before any tax would be paid, the total profit would have to reach a figure of £140,000. In addition, there would be a tax-free bonus of £80,000 arising from the investment allowance.
Thus, there is already a substantial tax holiday for people engaged in this kind of enterprise. My problem is one to which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred. If I give a special concession to this industry, will I not have to give similar concessions to every other extractive industry? I am impressed, however, by the arguments used in this debate. Strong opinions have been expressed on both sides. I can make no promise, but I undertake to look at this again between now and Report to see whether there is any way in which I can help by some further kind of tax concession.
My difficulty is that if I were to put forward any sort of concession which was held to be a precedent for all extractive industries, then I could not entertain the idea, but this is a special case. There are special circumstances in connection with this commodity at the present time. I do not want to be misunderstood. I cannot make any promise, but I will look at this again between now and Report.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am grateful to the Chancellor for what he has said. There is no doubt that the whole Committee has approached this matter with great sympathy and an awareness of the problems, not only in Cornwall and the industry itself, but also from the national point of view. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, this is a matter of plain commonsense for all of us.
We all recognise the problem which he has mentioned—I felt it incumbent upon me to deal with it at the start of my opening speech—that of creating precedents and setting up a whole succession of claims which might, rightly or wrongly, be based on any concession given in this case. I am in no illusions about the problems facing him now that he has undertaken to have a fresh look at the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said earlier, I hope that the Chancellor will look at this quite broadly and not specifically and narrowly in terms of this new Clause. We know his difficulties, but I hope that he will look much more widely and may, perhaps, give some thought to something that follows from what my hon. Friend said—that this area is one of unemployment and perhaps some arrangements could be made in connection with financial assistance available for that.
I do not want to stress that aspect too far, for none of us believes that in the long run this would lead to a big expansion in employment, because for historical reasons there has been a shortage of skilled miners in the area. Nevertheless, that might be one line for him to pursue.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the proposal for a mineral resources service, which was supported on both sides of the Committee, and also at various possible tax proposals. In view of his assurance I do not intend to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press this matter to a Division. He gave no commitment, and we understand that, but naturally we shall want to return to this matter on Report. If the result of his investigations proves negative, we may then have to take the action which we would otherwise have taken today, and he understands that.

Mr. Hayman: We are grateful to the Chancellor for his promise to look at this again. He referred to other extractive industries, but there is none other in the country where the risk to capital is so great as in this one, because, as I pointed out, the veins of tin are so far below the surface and are so tiny.

Mr. Marshall: I want to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his attitude to this and for the way in which he has answered the debate. I am grateful to him.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the Chancellor's statement, and the reasons which I have given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(RELIEF IN RESPECT OF INCAPACITATED HUSBAND.)

Section two hundred and sixteen (dependent relatives) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall apply to a wife living with a husband incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself as it applies to a claimant who proves that he maintains at his own expense a relative so incapacitated.—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I apologise for inflicting my voice again on the Committee, but in the very long hours which I spent here yesterday I spoke very little—but at least with some effect, I hope. I shall speak much more briefly than when I introduced the previous new Clause.
This is a short and simple point, and I appeal to the Chancellor to accept it. As the Committee will be aware, there is provision under the Income Tax Acts for a son or a daughter or other relative to make comparatively small sums available to dependent relatives and to claim tax remission upon them. For obvious reasons, because of possible abuse, the Inland Revenue and the Acts passed by the House of Commons have always been very restrictive. They have limited severely the amount of money that can be so charged against income.
They have also provided that if an allowance to a dependent relative raises the total income of the recipient beyond a certain very low figure, then the benefits

cease to apply. In Clause 12 of this Bill there is a slight increase in both figures, because, of course, the increase in the retirement pensions makes that necessary. I am not sure if the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is trying to intervene. He seems to be murmuring away. Perhaps he wants to intervene. I am afraid that his new Clause—"Relief for industrial use of light oils"—has been passed by.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has referred to me, no doubt in an effort to provoke me into an intervention, thereby keeping the debate going. I do not wish to intervene. With the courtesy which I try to practise on all occasions—and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman tries to emulate—I was trying to give some information to one of my hon. Friends who had asked me for it. Furthermore, the information was accurate—and accuracy is another quality which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My record in the proceedings of this Bill has not been one of delay.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I did not say that.

Mr. Wilson: I was not trying to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his feet with the object of delaying the Committee, but his whispering was a little louder than is usually the case and made it somewhat difficult for me to concentrate on a difficult point, and even more difficult for hon. Members to follow.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I should have done so before, but I express my regret if my whispering was so loud.

Mr. Wilson: The Committee has always been restrictive in its legislation about the amount available to dependent relatives and the total amount of income that relative could receive, including this allowance, without having consequential effects on the amount allowed for tax relief.
A considerable number of hon. Members will have personal experience, not only from their constituencies but probably from their own family life, of the


operation of Section 216 of the 1952 Act. It is a familiar thing in this country—and a good thing—that so many men and women who are working make allowances to their parents when their parents have retired and have not enough to live on. The usual thing is that if one has parents who are regarded as incapacitated by old age one usually allows an equal amount to the father and to the mother, the total making up a contribution to the family income for paying rent and other requirements.
6.30 p.m.
There is a problem where the incapacity arises not from age but from serious illness, very often illness meaning that the individual concerned may not work for a long time, and perhaps may never work again. In this case no allowance is available for the mother in the kind of case I am contemplating, except where she is over 60. Let me give an example.
If any one of us had parents aged 75 and was making the full allowance under this Clause, that would be allowed. One could make an allowance to one's father, and an allowance to one's mother. Many of us have done that, and we have experience of how it works. One can do that because, in the terms of the Act, they are both incapacitated by old age. Perhaps many people would quarrel with the phrase "incapacitated", because to suggest that parents or anyone else of a particular age are incapacitated is rather a legal fiction. On the other hand, it means that they are not currently able to earn a full wage or salary.
Consider the other example where perhaps one's father is aged 57 or 58 suffers some disablement. Perhaps he has a stroke or a coronary. One can think of a number of things that might happen to him—perhaps chronic rheumatism—so that he cannot go on working. In that case one can make an allowance only to him. One cannot make an allowance to one's mother in those circumstances unless she is over 60, and then she counts as being incapacitated on grounds of old age.
There must be many cases of this kind. Let us assume in the case that I have taken that the mother is 57 or 58. The need of that household for a grant from the son or daughter is the same as if both parents were over the age limit and both incapacitated on grounds of age.

There is no question of the mother going out to work to earn enough money to supplement the family income, and what the son or daughter wants to do is to make a grant to cover the household needs.
The present discrimination under the Act means that in one case one can make a grant of £150 to the father and mother, and in the second case a grant of only £75. That seems to me unfair. I think I know what the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary may have in mind as the objection to the new Clause, that one has to draw the line somewhere, and that the incapacitated man's wife may be quite young and able to go to work. That may be so, but, equally, if the man is incapacitated—and I mean wholly incapacitated and able to qualify for the dependent relative's allowance—it is more than likely that his wife will have to stay at home to look after him. It therefore seems unreasonable that she should not get a grant of this kind.
I am not suggesting that we should throw this wide open. I am not saying that in every case where the parents are under 60 there may be arguments for help from sons and daughters. I do not want that. I am not throwing on to the Inland Revenue any difficult problem of checking incapacity or the marital relationship to someone who is incapacitated. The Revenue already accepts the payment of £75 to the incapacitated man. It has no discretionary problem of deciding to whom it might be paid. All we are saying is that where it is granted the son or daughter should be able to make an allowance to the wife of the incapacitated man in the same way as it can be done if both the recipients are over the statutory age laid down in the Act. I hope that the Financial Secretary will look at this with some humanity. The cost will be negligible. I am sure that neither the Chancellor nor the Financial Secretary will stand on the ground of costs. The only argument will be the old one about precedents and that sort of thing.
We have gone right through the Finance Bill. We have debated many new Clauses late into the night. We have debated dozens of Amendments to the Bill. Traditionally the Chancellor is always supposed to have something up his sleeve to offer during the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to look up that sleeve. I am not taking


the Chancellor's word for this. The Chancellor during the Committee stage is looked on in the same way as someone who comes to present prizes at school. We know that it is never possible to ask for a holiday, but if someone came to present prizes and went away without giving a holiday something would be wrong.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am giving the right hon. Gentleman a half holiday on Report.

Mr. Wilson: I understand that that has been discussed through the usual channels. Equally, it is true that the Chancellor is expected to have a little bonus to offer at some stage. His mind is not so made up on Budget day that he is not able to consider anything.
Apart from one or two promises to consider certain things, all that the Chancellor has done so far is to yield to the argument, which many of us supported, of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East about horticulture. What we are proposing in this new Clause is a very small concession in terms of money. I hope therefore that at this late stage the Chancellor will tell us that he will not go away with his sleeve bulging with unused largesse, and that he will accept the new Clause. Apart from the other arguments that I have used, it will make a real difference to a lot of families. It is within the power of the Chancellor and the Committee to make this help available, and I hope that he will do it.

Dame Irene Ward: On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friends I support this new Clause which is in the same terms as the new Clause, "Dependent relatives" which I understand we may discuss at the same time. I was very glad to see that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) phrased his new Clause in these terms, and I am glad that he and his colleagues followed the lead given by Government supporters who tabled their new Clause first. The constitutional procedure of the House is very peculiar. It is interesting to note that the new Clause in the name of the right hon. Gentleman appears to have taken priority over the new Clause which my hon. Friends and I tabled. Nevertheless, it does not

in any way detract from both sides of the Committee joining forces to press my right hon. and learned Friend for this small concession. We are nearing the end of the Committee stage of the Bill. For humanitarian reasons, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us this small concession.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing that practically no administrative difficulties will arise. I get terribly bored with Government Departments advising their Ministers about administrative difficulties. If one has never been in a Government Department, it is difficult to know whether the criticisms put forward by a Department are genuine.
The only concession given by my right hon. Friend was in relation to horticulture. I noticed with great interest that immediately my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) rose and moved in eloquent terms the Amendment dealing with horticulture, he was surrounded and applauded, and the Government gave way in the twinkling of an eye. All I say about that is that it struck me as most odd that it should be necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend to have to move that Amendment. It meant that the Treasury could not have considered all the implications of the Finance Bill.
I have no objection to anything being given to the horticulturists—

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Lady will not pursue this point too far. She must deal with the new Clauses that we are discussing.

Dame Irene Ward: I will not pursue it too far, Sir Gordon, but right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches make very eloquent speeches embracing the whole scene, and it is difficult for back benchers if they also cannot embrace the whole scene. It may be that I am a little more descriptive than some of my right hon. Friends.

The Chairman: The hon. Lady must not embrace too much. That is all.

Dame Irene Ward: I certainly will not embrace too much. When the Chancellor presents a Finance Bill he is easily able to make a mistake. All I am trying to argue is that if it can be said that an


omission occurred in respect of horticulture it is competent for me to argue that there has been an omission in respect of this matter, and that a case for the concession for which we are asking him also arises, because the Chancellor has not given sufficient consideration to this kind of humanity Clause—which is how I describe it.
Many hard things have been said about the Chancellor on many occasions, not least by me, but I do not think that he is as hard-hearted as all that. I have noticed that on most occasions when I have been speaking at 5.30 a.m. he has not been here to listen to me. I cannot resist telling him how delighted I am to see him on the Front Bench now, listening to the arguments for these important new Clauses. It is much more difficult for him, when he is here in person, to reject a new Clause, than it is if the matter is left entirely to the Financial Secretary, whose only interest in recent Finance Bills seems to have been in widows and widowers. He is not in the least interested in any other section of the community. This is a very good opportunity for him to take some interest in other matters.
Most of us recognise what a difficult era we are living in, and what a great strain can be put upon our economy. At the same time, too great a strain can be put on certain individuals. I cannot think of a more difficult domestic situation for any individual to have to face than that of a woman who finds that her husband is incapacitated and feels obliged to take on a great extra burden in order to keep the home going. As the right hon. Member for Huyton said, many families would receive great encouragement, and feel that Parliament really cared about their difficulties, if my right hon. and learned Friend accepted either of the new Clauses.
I end by expressing the hope that if the Financial Secretary replies he will do so in a more humane manner than usual. I cannot understand why we should always have to have the Financial Secretary replying when we are dealing with humanities. I am tired of the situation where big busness draws the Chancellor into an argument but where the Financial Secretary always deals with the humanities. The Financial Secretary is a little too young to know as much about the humanities as

my right hon. and learned Friend. It is not right that we should always have the Financial Secretary dealing with the humanities. I suppose that I must accept an answer from him on this occasion, but I hope that he will give us a proper explanation. I do not expect him to accept either of the new Clauses, but I hope that he will give them a proper humanitarian and detailed consideration. I see that he is getting a little fussy about my remarks, but we have reached a pitch where hon. Members on both sides are entitled to ask for something for those who carry a very great burden, and for whom nothing has been done in the Budget.
6.45 p.m.
I expect that my hon. Friend will say that these people will be helped by the economic stability of the country. That is no argument. Everybody—Surtax payers and horticulturists included—will be helped by the country's financial stability. We are asking for something a little more for people whose personal lives, through no fault of their own, have got into a very difficult and sad state. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up a Finance Bill which has not given much to anybody he will give some thought to incapacitated husbands and their wives who look after them so gallantly, generously and fairly.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Experience has taught me always to be slightly nervous when my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that she hopes that I will forgive her for what she is about to say. I was relieved on this occasion to hear that it was nothing worse than a fear that I did not quite know the facts of life.
I understand that we are discussing with this new Clause the new Clause—(Dependent relatives)—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has put her name. They overlap, although the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) raised one or two considerations that do not strictly apply to the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, which I shall deal with at the end of my remarks.
The new Clauses raise the fundamental question of the place of Income Tax allowances in our society, in that some of


the needs that they were designed to recognise are nowadays met more directly by the Welfare State. As is well known, my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently refused to accept the idea of a disability allowance, principally on the ground that the right way to help the disabled is through the social services rather than by a tax relief.
The right hon. Member's new Clause would provide a tax relief of £75 in respect of severe disability, but available only to married men. Even if we were to accept the principle of a disability allowance, it would seem to me highly doubtful whether we should single out married men in this way. I appreciate the fact that the wife of a bedridden husband will often want to go out to work in order to supplement the household resources, and may be unable to do so unless she can secure what may be expensive paid help to look after the husband while she is absent. But we have to remember that under existing law the wife may be able to earn a considerable amount before her earnings attract any tax liability.
If the taxable income of the disabled husband is small—and this may well be the case if his resources take the form of a disablement pension which is, of course, tax free—any unused balance of the £240 personal allowance due to him as a married man can be set against her earnings in addition to the wife's earned income allowance of up to £140. In an extreme case where the husband had no chargeable income of his own, the two allowances, totalling £380, with the two-ninths earned income allowance would raise the starting point of liability for tax in respect of the wife's earnings to approximately £9 8s. a week.
It appears to me that these figures compare favourably with the earnings figure of £309 which is the starting point of tax liability for a married couple where the man is working and the wife is at home. So I must advise the Committee that in my view, even were we to accept the principle of disablement allowances, there is little case in equity for a proposal which would give relief for disability on a selective basis in that only married men would qualify.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot fail to ask

why he selected widows and widowers for housekeeping allowances. What he is saying about selection is absolute nonsense. The selection has already been made.

Sir E. Boyle: We have not discussed that matter on this occasion, but on other occasions we have discussed the point again and again. I am bound to agree that the present system of allowances is not absolutely symmetrical, as was recognised also by Lord Amory and successive Chancellors. But I do not think that, even were we to adopt the principle of disablement allowances, which we have always considered distasteful, it would be a good argument to adopt it on a discriminatory basis.
I listened to the cases which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had in mind and I understand entirely the point which he raised. But surely the point in the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring is that the wife is not incapacitated, although the husband is. It does not seem right to give an extra allowance because a husband is incapacitated and his wife has to look after him. The right hon. Gentleman, in his very fair speech, conceded that while there could be some hard cases where the husband was approaching retirement age, the wife might be considerably younger and in a good position to contribute to the wealth of the home.

Mr. H. Wilson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Here we are talking of a case where the wage earner is unable to bring in any family income apart from retirement pension, exactly as happens when the wage earner reaches retirement age and his wife also reaches the statutory age limit for these purposes.
The hon. Gentleman would agree that if his parents, or the parents of anyone else, were in the position that the family income was no longer coming in because the wage earner was incapacitated, the situation would be exactly the same as in the case of retirement; and any son or daughter worth their salt would want to contribute to the family income. The family income might have dropped £4, £5 or £6 a week, and a son or daughter would want to make a


contribution. It is not enough to be content with the individual allowance which might be made for one person. An effort is being made to make up some part of the loss of the household income because the wage earner is in capacitated. I suggest that that cannot be done on the basis of the limit set for one person and, as in the case of two older people, a double allowance has to be given to make life tolerable at all.
In the case of an incapacitated man, particularly the case which the hon. Gentleman mentioned where there is a younger wife going out to work, someone has to look after the incapacitated husband, and in that case I should have thought that the argument succeeded on grounds of sheer common humanity.

Sir E. Boyle: That was the point I was endeavouring to cover in my reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I see the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I regret that I cannot this afternoon go beyond what I said earlier. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject this Motion.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is always telling the Financial Secretary that he is too young. People said that William Pitt was too young to be Prime Minister, when he was much younger than the Financial Secretary. But Pitt said that it was a disability which, by the grace of God, he hoped to grow out of in due time. That applied also to the Finance Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is not, however, too young to give things away. He has not give way on this Motion and we are very disappointed.
The hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, has unnecessarily complicated this matter. Dependent relative allowance is given not to the recipient of help from a relative but to the donor of the assistance to an aged or incapacitated relative. The case which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was a simple one. It related to a husband incapacitated by illness and a wife not incapacitated either by age or illness. In such a case, where the son makes an allowance to

his father and mother, he may claim dependent relative allowance, subject to the conditions of qualification, in respect only of the father, because he is the person who is totally incapacitated, and not the mother. The rule for dependent relatives applies separately. Each has to pass the test of qualification of old-age, infirmity or incapacity. In the case of a disabled husband, assistance given to both father and mother cannot be allowed to a donor who might otherwise be able to claim dependent relative allowance for the two.
The sophisticated taxpayer does not rely on a dependent relative allowance at all. He makes a covenant and is able to get total relief on both Income Tax and Surtax, if he is a Surtax payer, on the allowance paid to his parents. It is, of course, true that money so given to parents is assessable in their hands as income, and is treated according to the rest of their circumstances for Income Tax purposes. The dependent relative allowance is an allowance claimed mostly by people who do not feel able to commit themselves for a seven-year period ahead or for whom there are other difficulties in the way of making a covenant.
Is there any real difficulty in dealing with this simple point, that where a husband is totally incapacitated and qualifies for dependent relative allowance to the donor, the mother should also qualify, even though she is not incapacitated? She is dependent on the husband. She has to pass the test of income in any case, and there is no suggestion that she should not do so. If the wife went out to work and earned more than the sum which would enable the donor to qualify for the allowance, it would not be granted.
We are most disappointed that we should end on this unhappy note and find that such a minor change in the dependent relative relief is resisted by the Financial Secretary. In the circumstances, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee. This is a small change in the relief which we fully believe could be given by the Chancellor without unnecessary complication and certainly without difficulty.

Questions put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 244.

Division No. 216.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Albu, Austen
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Awbery, Stan
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baoon, Miss Alice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelcs, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowles, Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyden, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Short, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyoe (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, Arthur


Callaghan, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Cronin, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Croasman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Driberg, Tom
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mapp, Charles
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermlins)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Marsh, Richard
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mason, Roy
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, John


Edwards, Robert (Billiton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Millan, Bruce
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert
Milne, Edward J.
Wade, Donald


Finch, Harold
Mitchison, G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Monslow, Walter
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John
Watkins, Tudor


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Weitzman, David


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Moyle, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Griffithe, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Orem, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grimond, J.
Owen, Will
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W)
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T.
Woof, Robert


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence



Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.


Hewitson, Capt. M.






NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Berkeley, Humphry
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brooman-White, R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Allason, James
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, F. P.
Bryan, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Black, Sir Cyril
Buck, Antony


Barber, Anthony
Bossosm, Clive
Bullard, Denys


Barlow, Sir John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Barter, John
Box, Donald
Burden, F. A.


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Sir Edward
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Brains, Bernard
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Cary, Sir Robert


Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Channon, H. P. G.




Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Pym, Francis


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Ramsden, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes Hallett, Vim-Admiral John
Rawlinson, Peter


Cole, Norman
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cooke, Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rees, Hugh


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, David


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Jackson, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Coulson, J. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roots, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Seymour, Leslie


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Shaw, M.


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, J.
Skeet, T. H. H.


de Fee-anti, Basil
Leather, E. H. C.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speir, Rupert


du Cann, Edward
Lindsay, Martin
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eden, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir Malcolm


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longbottom, Charles
Storey, Sir Samuel


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Farr, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Finlay, Graeme Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McAdden, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Freeth, Denzil
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Teeling, William


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Temple, John M.


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Goodhew, Victor
Macpherson. Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Cough, Frederick
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir John


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grimston, Sir Robert
Mills, Stratton
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vesper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morrison, John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nabarro, Gerald
Walter, David


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Webster, David


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Whitelaw, William


Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodnutt, Mark


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss Edith
Woollam, John


Hocking, Philip N.
Pott, Percivall
Worsley, Marcus


Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hollingworth, John
Prior, J. M. L.



Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hopkins, Alan
Proudtoot, Wilfred
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Noble,

New Clause.—(POLICE PROSECUTIONS FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSFERRED DUTIES.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section two hundred and eighty-one of the Act of 1952, as applied under section three hundred and thirteen of that Act, a local authority in England or Wales may authorise the bringing by any constable of proceedings, or any particular proceedings, for an offence under the excise Acts relating to any duty of excise the levying of which has been transferred to the authority under section six of the Finance Act, 1908

(licences for dealing in game, killing game, and guns) or section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1949 (hawker's, money-lender's, pawnbroker's and refreshment house licences).

(2) A document purporting to be a copy of a resolution authorising the bringing of proceedings in accordance with this section and to be signed by an officer of the local authority shall be evidence, until the contrary is shown, that the bringing of the proceedings was duly authorised.—[Mr. Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause is intended to legalise the position of the police constable prosecuting for an excise licence offence on behalf of a local authority. I shall explain briefly what is intended. Under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, Section 282, proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction for Customs or Excise offences have to be commenced by an officer. The phrase "an officer" is defined in Section 307 of that Act as
a person commissioned by the Commissioners
of Customs and Excise.
Under Section 313, in certain cases in place of a Customs and Excise officer for prosecuting purposes there is substituted an officer of a local authority. I say in certain cases—cases in which the local authorities have been given powers to levy certain Customs and Excise duties. Those powers were conferred under two Acts—Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1908, which deals with licences to deal in game, licences for killing game, gun licences and dog licences, and Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1949, which deals with hawkers' licences, moneylenders' licences, pawnbrokers' licences and refreshment house licences.
Strictly by law, any prosecution in connection with those licences must be brought by an officer of the local authority. In fact, in practice they are instituted by a police officer, for the very good reason that they are usually prosecutions in connection with some other offence. For example, prosecutions about game licences and gun licences are usually connected with poaching offences, and it would be most inconvenient if an officer of the local authority had to bring the prosecution about the absence of a licence and a police constable had to bring the prosecution about the poaching.
This difficulty was faced in connection with motor-car licences in the Finance Act, 1956. Under Section 5 (5) of that Act a constable was authorised with the consent of a local authority to bring prosecutions in connection with motor-car licences. This new Clause merely applies that principle to these cases of minor licensing offences which I have

mentioned. It does not require that a police constable should bring these prosecutions. It is entirely permissive, enabling him to do so with the consent of the local authority. Subsection (2) shows how that consent is given by resolution and how it is deemed to be proved.
I do not believe that this will impose any additional burden on the police force. It merely regularises in a simple form a present fiction whereby a local authority appoint the police constable an ad hoc officer of the local authority in order to get round the provisions of the present law. The Clause is intended to give him the right, in his capacity as a police constable, to prosecute for these minor licensing offences.

Sir E. Boyle: The purpose of the new Clause is to enable the police to prosecute for certain minor licensing offences under the Acts of 1908 and 1949.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has explained that.

Sir E. Boyle: It is my custom to remind the Committee, in case they have not fully understood, what the Clause is about before tendering advice to the Committee on it. On balance, I think that is a good thing.

Mr. Wilson: It could not have been better explained than it was by the hon. Member for Crosby. Even though I was out of the Committee for part of the time I understood it quite well. I suggest to the Financial Secretary, in order that we can keep to the timetable, that he should just accept the new Clause, sit down, and let the Question be put.

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated my very next sentence. I was about to say that, having listened to the lucid exposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I advise the Committee to accept the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Sixth Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 145].

Orders of the Day — LICENSING BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

7.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. and right hon. Members who have followed the Bill will have heard sufficient from me and will wish to make their own contributions to the debate. I will try to set a good example by being as brief as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, made it clear that there should be wide scope for discussion on all stages of the Bill and that the Government would welcome this. His expectations have been fully realised. The Bill has had a full consideration at all stages. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for making it possible for the Bill to be reprinted since Monday night. The reprint of the Bill makes it clear that considerable alterations have been made at various stages. This is right and proper, because in a Measure of this kind the Government for their part, while being clear about the general principles which they wish to commend to Parliament, ought to be receptive to constructive criticisms and suggestions from right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House.
My first and very welcome duty, therefore, is to thank all those right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for their co-operation. Perhaps I should say a special word to those who represent Welsh constituencies. I seem to remember that at one time one of them said that we should still be in Committee in August. Many of the Welsh Members have made clear from the start their fundamental opposition to the whole principle of local option, and we respect the sincerity of their views. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I believe that in the outcome the people of Wales will welcome the opportunity afforded to them of reaching a decision by direct vote on this important question. Although on a matter like this the Government have not found it possible—I am speaking of Clause 6—to make any compromise of principle, it

has been possible to make some alterations to Clause 6 and to the Second Schedule which I think have met with general approval. I have in mind the limitation on advertisements, the procedure at the poll, postal voting provisions and provisions for observers at the count, and matters of that kind.
I have mentioned this Clause first, because it has possibly been the most time-consuming Clause in the Bill and also because it represents, as we accept, one of the most radical changes. Having said that, it might be helpful if I remind the House once again of the objects of the Bill. I can summarise them as follows: first, to revise social legislation in the light of present-day conditions; secondly, to achieve a balance between the restraints necessary to prevent abuse and the need for freedom in a responsible society; and thirdly, to introduce a Bill to suit the general interest and have particular regard to the needs of the consumer.
I think that it is fair to say that the consumer has perhaps tended to be under-represented in our deliberations, while the demands of particular interests have been, no doubt quite rightly, heavily pressed. I therefore believe that the public take a more generous view of this Measure than might sometimes appear from a report of our proceedings.
It would perhaps be helpful if I referred to the principal changes which have been made in the Bill since it was read a Second time. The first change to which I refer is that in the procedure for the granting of licences and for subsequent appeal. This change will simplify and modernise the structure of the licensing laws and should bring advantages to the authorities, to the trade and to the public. I apologise to the House that this change was made at a late stage, but it was impractical to do it in Committee, for reasons which I think are understood, and we felt that the proposal met with such universal approval and that the occasions for licensing legislation are so few and far between that we should make it better late than never. It appears in Clause 11. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr Rees-Davies), who has been interested in this aspect of licensing reform for many months.
The second change which the Bill makes—this was in the original Bill but it is perhaps the major change—is to differentiate between a drink with a meal or at one's place of residence and a drink for the sake of drinking, or perpendicular drinking, as hon. Members have come to know it.
This is the basis of Part I of the Bill, and the principle remains, but it has been strengthened with additional safeguards. I will put them on record, because they are rather difficult to find in the Bill as it stands.
First, the term "customary main meal" has been introduced in place of "substantial refreshment". Secondly, liquor may not be sold to persons other than those taking table meals. The emphasis is on the word "table". If there was any possibility of the snack bar being considered, this definition will eliminate it. Thirdly, licensing justices can limit hours in premises where only lunch or dinner is provided. Fourthly, justices may refuse licences if the trade done on the premises in providing table meals is not substantial. Fifthly, the residential requirement is now no longer bed and breakfast but bed and breakfast plus one main meal. I want to make it quite clear that these safeguards are additional to the safeguards and conditions which were in the Bill which received a Second Reading and they should serve to protect against abuse of this Part of the Bill.
I have no doubt that applications for these licences will be fairly numerous, but, apart from the obvious attractions and merits of this proposal, any diversion away from casual drinking, which this Part of the Bill could well mean, must surely be welcomed in all parts of the House.
The third major change relates to permitted hours. The Bill retains the framework of uniform hours, but in response to general demand it now introduces more flexibility, particularly during the middle hours of the day, and gives licensing justices fairly wide discretion to meet local needs. This was pressed upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from all parts. It will now, for example, be possible for licensing justices to vary the hours on different days of the week. That is something new in our licensing procedure. The

extra hour on Sunday afternoon has been removed, but an extra half-hour has been added in the evening. It would be open for consideration in another place as to whether this should be at the discretion of the justices.
I remain quite unrepentant about drinking-up time. We believe that this is right in principle and the modified period of ten minutes seems the reasonable solution. The Government readily accepted a proposal made by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) for a new type of licence where music and refreshments are provided beyond the normal permitted hours, subject to certain conditions being fulfilled. This proposal will be introduced in another place and should meet the needs of holiday resorts, which I believe feel that even the more generous proposals in the Bill do not entirely meet their needs.
I come now to Part III, one of the most important parts of the Bill. Here we have adhered to the general principle, which clearly commended itself to the House on Second Reading and at subsequent stages. This Part provides a form of control over registered clubs which should prevent in the future the formation or continuance of those clubs which are little more than unlicensed drinking shops or have otherwise given rise to social evils. For this reason, we could not respond to the clarion call of "killing Part III".
At the same time—I take up the words used earlier this week—the Government are not insensitive to the rights of club members, and relaxation in this part of the Bill has been made wherever possible where this is not detrimental to the essential fabric.
I will mention the relaxations, which I think will be of interest to the club community. First, certificates of up to ten years may be granted at the first renewal, and in the case of clubs which have been established for twenty-five years this may be done a year earlier. Secondly, clubs which are registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies may be exempt from those parts of the Bill where the Registrar exercises control similar to that contained in the Bill—that is, principally in the Schedule.
Thirdly, appearance in court by the applicant is no longer necessary—it was


not really necessary in the Bill as published, but it has been removed beyond all doubt—unless the magistrates or objectors require it. Fourthly, the representations which right hon. and hon. Members received from all over the country in respect of ex-Service clubs have been met in full. Fifthly, in respect of the character of the committee, which caused some offence, I hope that the Amendments moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General have been effective in removing the disquiet caused in that respect. Lastly, police inspection, always limited to first inspection before registration, is now to be limited to new clubs where special need arises.
I am quite certain that the provisions of Part III will not be found to be an inconvenience to the genuine and respectable clubs of this country, and I am putting these words on the record so that those who still suffer apprehensions—I think that there are still a few of them today—may judge them in the course of time. Indeed, I have always argued that the elimination of the drinking clubs should be to the advantage of the thousands of genuine and respectable clubs.
In the light of the recent disastrous fire in a Bolton club, we have looked again at what might be called the public safety aspects and provision has been made for the inspection of clubs by the fire authority and we are examining further to see if anything else should be done in this respect.
Many other changes have been made which will be of advantage to the public as well as to the trade and to licensing authorities. We have, for example, accepted all the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), because we felt that some relaxation here was consistent with the general pattern of the Bill.
As the House knows, further changes in the Bill remain to be implemented in another place.
As I said when speaking on the first Amendment earlier this week, young persons cause us considerable anxiety. We have always had this matter very much in mind. For example, one of the grounds for refusal of a Part I licence—this was in the original Bill—

is that in the case of premises which are frequented by a large proportion of young persons, the justices can refuse to grant a licence. It has also been made an offence—this has been put in the Bill since Second Reading—for a young person to consume a drink in a public house. We also agreed on Report—the Amendment is yet to be inserted—to prohibit the sale by off-licence premises to those under the age of 18, and the penalties for offences in respect of young persons have been increased by as much as twenty-five times.
To those who fear that the Bill gives fresh encouragement to drinking I say that throughout its contents the penalties for offences against licensing laws have been stepped up very considerably. Most of these increased penalties were in the Bill at the time of Second Reading, but perhaps they had not received all the attention that they merit.
In conclusion, the Government do not regard this as a charter for increasing drinking, but repression, especially in a free society, is no remedy for the evils of excess drinking. The Bill provides, or endeavours to provide, a sensible framework within which the forces of moderation and persuasion can operate, but which also contains powerful deterrents against those who might otherwise abuse it.
I hope that the Bill will be viewed as a whole and not as a collection of individual Clauses. If it is viewed as a whole, the Government are confident that it will be acceptable to public opinion, understood by the public, and enforceable, which is, perhaps, most important of all. In this sense I commend the Bill to the House.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As the House knows, right hon. and hon. Members on this side throughout our debates on the Bill have had an entirely free vote, completely untrammelled by the Whips or party discipline. It is perhaps for that reason that so many of our debates in Committee were so admirable and served such a useful purpose, Therefore, on this as on other occasions, I speak merely for myself. There is, however, one respect in which I think that I can fairly claim to speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is in acknowledging the consideration


which we have had throughout the passage of the Bill from the Minister of State, who has listened with so much sympathy and receptiveness to the numerous Amendments which we tabled during the Committee stage and, indeed, subsequently. As the Minister has just recognised, a very large number of changes, perhaps of detail but in total amounting to quite substantial changes, have been made since the Bill received its Second Reading.
I would, therefore, like to pay tribute to the way in which the Minister of State has, throughout, made a very real attempt to meet the views which Members of the Committee and of the House have expressed on many controversial points. In paying that tribute, I extend it, of course, to the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General, from whom we are always accustomed to receive such a masterly combination of courtesy and lucidity.
On Second Reading, which is now nearly six months ago, I said that it was with same hesitation that I would vote for the Bill's Second Reading. I said that I realised that it was opposed on Christian and moral grounds by leaders of the churches, that I was supporting it with reservations and that I was not sure what my attitude would be on Third Reading unless the Measure was substantially modified.
The Bill has been materially changed and I endorse what the Minister of State has said, that in deciding this evening how we should vote we have to regard the Bill as a whole. It does not contain a great many provisions that I should like to see in it, but, on the positive side, I welcome it as a liberalising Measure. We must all recognise that our existing laws are out of date and full of anomalies that create irritations for responsible citizens. They discourage and hamper our tourist industry, they fail to differentiate effectively between the licensed hours for drinking in public houses and the permitted hours for consuming alcohol with a meal.
I feel, therefore, the provisions in Part I for the grant of restaurant licences and residential licences are a step in the right direction. I believe that they will tend to promote as a social habit the drinking of alcohol—by those who wish it—with

a meal, as distinct from the habit of the continuous consumption of alcohol in public houses without other refreshment. That will be a change altogether to the good, and I look forward to the day when a good many of the rather out-of-date, sordid public houses are transformed into "pub-restaurants", to which the man who wants a drink can, without embarrassment, take his wife, friends and other members of the family.
I regard Part II as being of rather less importance, but I shall say a word about that later. From the outset I have welcomed the provisions of Part III as a genuine effort to rid our society of the evil that has grown up in recent years, particularly in the suburbs of London, of those bogus clubs that are at present able to obtain registration merely by the payment of a nominal fee; clubs that have become little more than dens of drinking and of other vice, and are entirely without any police control or supervision.
My only regret here is that the Bill does nothing to touch the equally undesirable non-alcoholic clubs and cafés which also abound in the suburbs of London, often as breeding-grounds of vice, and I hope that, in another Measure, the Home Secretary will do something to deal with these non-alcoholic cafés and clubs, of which he is aware.
On the other hand, I and a great many of my hon. Friends cannot disregard the strong feelings still held by the churches and by moral welfare workers and others whose opinion is that, taken as a whole, the Bill will lead to a considerable increase in drinking and, in particular, will expose young people to greatly increased temptation to drink, through the grant of a virtually free trade in intoxicants in boarding houses and restaurants.
For my part, I believe that in dealing with social matters like this, we in this House always have the duty to heed the voice of the Christian churches on these problems, but I am also conscious that, recognising what the churches have to say, Parliament has a wider duty to all its citizens, and that we must have regard to the reasonable wishes of responsible people, and to legislate for them by introducing sensible legislation.
I would say, if I might, to those in the churches, both in Islington and elsewhere, who have written to me on this


subject, that, apart from special protection for the young, one cannot—and I think that the Minister of State echoed this sentiment—in this day and generation inculcate temperance and restraint in drinking habits by repressive legislation. That can be done only by precept and example. I would also draw to the attention of those who have written to me the very substantial improvements that have been made in the Bill since it had its Second Reading. As I am sure the Minister of State will acknowledge, most of the improvements have resulted from Amendments moved by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself—although, I agree, some have come from the other side.
The Minister has referred in detail to some of the changes in the Bill, but I should like to indicate what I regard as the six major improvements that have been made since Second Reading. First, I would put the promise to prohibit any public houses or restaurants selling alcoholic drinks on any motorway. I believe that in accepting that Amendment the Home Secretary was responsive to a very widespread feeling on this subject throughout the country.
Secondly, I welcome the tightening of the controls over restaurant licences, notably, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by substituting the words
…customary main meal at midday or in the evening…
for "substantial refreshment," and also by insisting that those who prefer non-alcoholic drinks, including water, can get them without any difficulty.
Thirdly, I stress the fact that as a result of the new provisions introduced in Committee, magistrates will now have power to refuse restaurant licences to premises that are largely patronised by unaccompanied young people, even though those young people are taking substantial meals there. Fourthly, I welcome the promise to place some check on the present right of children of 14 years of age and over to buy any quantities of alcohol at off-licences. Fifthly, I welcome the abandonment of the idea of extending the Sunday afternoon closing time from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.—a proposal that was almost universally condemned as soon as it was proposed in the House.
Finally, I welcome the substantial relaxation of the provisions in Part III in regard to the registration of workingmen's clubs. My own feeling is that those relaxations in the law for the benefit of genuine clubs, including workingmen's and similar clubs, will not in any way hamper or restrict the main object of Part III, which is to give the Home Office power to eradicate what we have come to call the bogus, undesirable club.
It is because of the substantial improvements in the Bill that I, on balance, think that the law as amended by this Measure will be better than the law as it now stands, and, although it does not contain all the improvements that I would have wished, I propose to support it on Third Reading. But there are two reservations which I want to make in the hope that there will still be further changes in another place.
The decision of the Minister of State, endorsed by the Home Secretary, which really made me cross was the sudden and totally unexpected decision, announced at a late hour on Tuesday night of last week, to extend the closing hours of public houses on Sundays from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. That announcement was received with very considerable surprise and alarm by practically all my hon. Friends—I acknowledge that there were exceptions—and by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this matter.
We had no reason to suppose in the Committee, in view of the considerable debate we had on this subject, that any such fundamental change would be made. There was a conflict of opinion in the Committee. As the Home Secretary knows, the Minister of State said that he would review the whole matter, and he said that, while he was proposing to adhere to the existing closing hour of 10 p.m., he was prepared to consider giving the justices the discretion to extend the closing time until 10.30 p.m. These were the words the Minister of State used:
I should like to consider…not a general extension on Sundays but an extension, at the justices' discretion, of half an hour…I have not closed my mind to that completely, but I suggest that the Sunday hours are about right, with the possible extension of half-an-hour in the evening if the justices are of that


opinion". [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th March, 1961; c. 563.]
In view of those words, for the Home Secretary to announce that he was going to fix the closing hour at 10.30 p.m., whether the justices liked it or not, was quite unreasonable, capricious, was not supported by any public demand, was contrary to the wishes of the trade, and, indeed, was contrary to the general view of the Committee and of the House.
It seems therefore, that that decision was completely out of line with the numerous other decisions which the Minister of State and the Home Secretary had taken to respond to the general views of the Committee. I hope, even at this stage, that the Home Secretary will have further thoughts about this matter.
The only reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave on 6th June, when he intervened in support of his right hon. Friend, was that he thought that it would make for uniformity. But the case for uniformity has long since been abandoned. The attempts made to secure complete uniformity of a closing hour throughout the country have long since been abandoned and, personally, I do not think that the idea was ever very practical. I think that the danger that it was intended to deal with—the chasing around from one district to another where closing hours varied—was always exaggerated.
The idea of uniformity does not apply on six days of the week and it is, therefore, ridiculous to argue that this totally uncalled for change in the closing hours on Sunday is either desired or can be justified on the ground of uniformity.
The other reservation I make is with regard to young people. As the Minister of State has said, there are provisions in the Bill expressly designed to give the maximum protection to young people so as to do all that we can to protect them against the incipient temptations to drink alcohol at a premature age. They do not go far enough.
In this connection, I should like to quote what the Guardian said yesterday:
…the Government has missed chances to curb drinking by young people under eighteen…restrictions on their right to drink in clubs, or to buy liquor at off-licences, would have made an appreciable contribution to the checking of the juvenile disorders which are

so constantly deplored. The Lords should give the Commons a chance to think again…
I echo those sentiments and, with those reservations and in the hope of still further improvement of these matters, I am prepared to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: My first thought on this occasion is to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his courage—for this has been a difficult subject to approach—and for the sound basis, in general, of the Bill which he has presented to the House. There have been one or two occasions when I have not felt it possible, or necessary, for me to extend so large a bouquet to him. And for the Minister of State I have the greatest warmth and praise.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) made a fair speech, and I do not substantially quarrel with its content. But I thought that he made rather heavy weather, as I indicated in an intervention on the Report stage to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), about the extension of the half an hour. There is, perhaps, room for doubt about the thoughts of the Committee on this point, but I had no measure of doubt that the Home Secretary was impressed with the arguments adduced on this subject and it was no surprise to me when he announced the extension to 10.30 p.m. I have no doubt that, having considered the arguments expressed by hon. Members in the Committee and having consulted his right hon. Friend, he came to the decision he did. Actually, I do not think that it surprised the hon. Member for Islington, East as much as he said it did.
In approaching this subject, hon. Members will know from previous occasions that I have a modest interest, and I declare it emphatically. I have approached this subject from the angle that it has been highly desirable to have a wide measure of liberalisation and freedom, compatible with safety, public decorum and fairness to those employed. In the course of the 75 to 80 hours which we spent in Committee, those three points were never absent from the minds of hon. Members and the same has been true of the thought of hon. Members in the House.
I have been impressed with the almost, but not quite, unanimous view that we want to see a working licensing system more in accord with our modern society. Few hon. Members—even those who do not look upon the habit of drinking as at all desirable—have been reasonable in wishing to see, if there is to be drinking, that the system is reasonable and is in accord with present day standards.
In recent years, great steps forward have been taken. There has been a much greater growth of self respect and the public house is now seldom referred to as an "alcoholic solace". It is becoming more than ever a social centre and, in some areas, it can be the best club in the town. That partnership of effort, good will and civility has made our system of public houses exemplary. Public houses are admired and respected, and, of course, they represent a sort of indefinable characteristic of the British way of life.
I have much praise for this Measure, but my modest criticism of it is almost entirely devoted to Part I. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his attitude towards the considerable number of Amendments I have ventured to move and for tabling his own to carry out, perhaps in a better way, the objects and aims of my Amendments. The hon. Member for Islington, East referred to several of these Amendments, which have resulted in the tightening up which I desired to see in respect of new licences or the capacity to acquire new licences, particularly by restaurants under Part I.
I want to say a word of praise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. He contributed enormously to the atmosphere of that remarkable Committee. Several of us, including myself, found ourselves supporting different sides of the Committee at various times, and quite often the Government had the support of Opposition Members. The Government did not always have my support; indeed, I voted with the Opposition on a few occasions. The whole atmosphere made this the best Committee that I have known in the relatively short period of eleven or twelve years that I have been in this House, and that was due in no small way to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who was so patient

and willing to listen and learn and also to give his advice.
The good will which was present in the Committee has contributed equally to the good will that has been present in all quarters of the industry which has been deeply impressed with the way in which this House has conducted its proceedings on the Bill. With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: Whatever be the merits or demerits of the proposals in this Bill, I am forced still to register my objection to the Bill as a whole because of the inclusion in it of Clause 6. That Clause is entirely alien to the rest of the Bill. The other Clauses deal with and will affect Wales in the same way as England in relation to licensing matters, hours and so on, but Clause 6 goes much deeper and further than any of them.
Clause 6 deals with the life of the nation, its habits, its respect for the Sabbath and the possibility that those of us who are truly native to that land which we cherish, who still speak the language of our forefathers, may find our lives altered by a majority vote exercised by those who still dwell there but rarely enter fully into the life of the nation. We are still passionately anxious that our separate individual identity should be preserved. We still speak the language of our ancestors. It is the language of our homes, the language that we not only use in Wales but which we who are Welsh-speaking use amongst ourselves in the Palace of Westminster.
We cherish our literature and our language. There is a difference between us and the other two non-English races. In Scotland only a very few speak Gaelic. In Ireland, which has at last demanded and obtained its own independence, its own ancient language has merely been preserved artificially. But to us our language is still our natural and first language and is still in daily use.
I understand from the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that before the other parts of the Bill were introduced full inquiries were made and a number of people were consulted. But apparently Clause 6 was introduced at


the last moment merely because somebody said, "What shall we do about Wales?" The Clause was slipped in surreptitiously by a sort of sleight of hand. It reminds one of the practices of a card-sharper. Wales was not consulted.
If I were in charge of a Bill of this kind and had this sort of question brought before me, the first people I would consult would be the Churches, because this matter affects the churches probably more than it affects anybody else. I should want to know what effect they think Sunday opening would have on the Sabbath day. But neither the Church of England in Wales nor any one of the Nonconformist Churches seem to have been consulted at all. This was brought in without any consultation with those who know most about it.
There has been no consultation even with the local councils. Lord Morrison, when Leader of the House, consulted me with regard to proposed legislation which he thought might be of advantage to Wales and I suggested to him that it would be a very good thing if he consulted the County Councils Association. He did so. That body gave advice contrary to what he thought was right, but he bowed to its advice as it represented the people of Wales.
There has been no consultation on this issue with the representatives of the local councils in Wales. The Government could have consulted the magistrates. But they did not. I understand that consultations on a very wide scale were made on the other parts of the Bill, but not on this Clause. Reference has been made to the effect of Sunday closing upon the tourist trade in Wales. So far as I know, it would never affect the tourist trade, but the tourist agency which could have given advice was not even consulted.
Finally, and the most extraordinary thing of all, there was created by the Labour Government the Council for Wales. I never liked it. It is a non-democratic council. It is appointed by the Minister. I even denounced it, when Lord Morrison introduced it at the Dispatch Box, as a Welsh soviet. Nevertheless, the Welsh Council has been continued by the present Government, and it was not consulted. All

that happened was that at the end of a meeting of the Council, the Minister for Welsh Affairs presiding, there was a talk with individuals—not a formal consultation—each person expressing his own views, and, according to the Minister, they were not unanimous about it.
No Government would dare to treat Scotland as we have been treated. The treatment that has been meted out to Wales reminds me of the treatment that used to be given by the English Government and this House to the Irish people, and we all know the effect of that. Not only do I admire Scotland, its people and its Members in this House; I envy them. I understand that a Bill is going to be introduced to deal with the question of licensing in Scotland. That was not dealt with by pushing a Clause into the middle of an English Bill. It is going to be introduced as a separate Bill. What is more, it will go before the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Members will discuss it.
True we have been granted something similar, and we now have our Welsh Committee meetings, but we were not consulted. We have got to debate this matter on the Floor of the House, where we are a minority and always will be. This is flouting the nation. It is wounding to national pride that Measures of this kind should be introduced without any consultation with us whatsoever.
During the Report stage we were asked to agree that a percentage of people should vote before a poll could be regarded as a proper and legal poll. That was refused to us, but it had been granted to Scotland. We were asking for a mere 2 per cent. It was flouted and put on one side. Scotland was granted 10 per cent. Why the distinction? It seems to me that we, the Welsh nation, with our very honourable record and our great history, have been flouted and been treated as of no importance. But the Government Front Bench not only have a respect for Scotland; they have a wholesome fear of the Scottish people.
The Government have behaved very differently from the way their predecessors behaved in regard to matters affecting Wales. It is well known that, since


1485, certainly since 1536, politically and economically we have been closely associated with England. It may interest the House to know that our political association which began in 1536 with the Act of Union was not forced upon us by an English Parliament but was brought about in response to a request and a petition from Wales. Ever since, that has been the history almost throughout. For example, our education system, of which we are tremendously proud—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I hope he will remember that he is speaking on the Third Reading of the Licensing Bill.

Mr. Davies: I realise that, Sir William, and I bow to your Ruling. What I object to is Clause 6 and the way it was introduced, the differentiation there has been in bringing Clause 6 in in regard to Wales compared with the way in which other legislation affecting my countrymen and myself was introduced in the past by the House of Commons.
I have mentioned the example of education. In 1888, our education system was established at the request of Wales. Again, the Church of England in Wales was disestablished at the request of Wales. What is still more extraordinary is that Clause 6 is introduced now, without consultation, yet it will repeal an Act of 1881 which was introduced at the request of Wales expressed in a very great petition in those days. It must have been extremely difficult to collect 267,000 names in Wales in those days, but that was the petition to the House, at that time, to which the House responded without any negation whatever.
I believe that through the way they have behaved in this matter the Government may have started a movement the end of which they cannot foresee. I myself have long felt that our affairs should be looked after by our own Parliament much on the same lines as Ulster. We have a greater and better right than Ulster ever had. There is a movement in Wales for complete independence, and action such as this—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I regret to have to interrupt the right hon. and learned Member again, but the Third Reading debate must be restricted to what is in order.

Mr. Davies: I bow to your Ruling, Sir William. I conclude by saying that because of the introduction of Clause 6 in this way, without any consultation, I have no alternative but to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has spoken with considerable feeling about Clause 6 which deals with Sunday opening in Wales. He will not expect me to follow him in those observations, although I can well understand his concern for the Principality. As a Wessex man myself, born and bred, I know very well that it is sometimes forgotten in the House how strongly we feel about our part of the country and the way in which its individuality tends to be merged with other parts of England which are very different.
No one can say that the Bill has not received very full discussion. We had no less than twenty-five sittings in Committee and three days on Report. For that very reason, I think it is good now to recall exactly what we are doing in the Bill so that we may see the wood through the trees. Some of the principal changes wrought by the Bill can become easily forgotten in the course of our discussions.
Reference has been made already to the way in which the Bill has evoked very strong religious and moral reactions, in particular on the part of what one hon. Member opposite called the "teetotal lobby". The teetotal lobby was very strong in our deliberations upstairs. Others of us have felt that the freedom of the individual to use his leisure as far as possible as he liked was an important principle also. The two principles have been in considerable conflict. As so often happens when there is a conflict of that kind, there have been many compromises. Compromises find few champions, and it is, therefore more difficult to champion this Bill wholeheartedly than it would have been otherwise.
I feel that the members of what has been called the teetotal lobby have had a bit more than their share of influence during the course of our discussions. The very fact that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), whom I regard, rightly or wrongly, as one of that lobby, likes the Bill as it now stands leads me to believe that, perhaps, a rather vocal minority has had more than its share of concessions. In saying that, however, I do not wish to detract in any way from the very excellent task performed by the Minister of State. He has exercised amazing patience and very great skill throughout. If it seems to some of us that the outcome of the conflict between liberalisation and restriction went too much one way, that is not to deny that his piloting of the Bill has been truly skilful.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his courage in tacking the problem at all. It is not an easy problem to tackle, any more than was the Betting and Gaming Act of last year. Both Measures will touch a great many people, and it is a little difficult to see quite what the effect will be. Both Measures are bound to evoke sharp reactions from many. This is no drastic reform which we are considering tonight, but it is, perhaps, as large a measure of reform as the country itself is ready for.
A great many hopes and fears have been expressed. There is a poem by Clough which begins
Say not, the struggle nought availeth
and which continues with the line
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars.
There have been many fears expressed about what drinking habits the Bill may lead to, and, no doubt, in the minds of some interested in brewing there have been hopes as well. Both may well prove false and, for my part, I doubt that it will make a tremendous difference to the volume of drink consumed in this country.
After our weary hours—some of them were weary, I think—in Committee and on Report, we do not at first sight seem to have made any very devastating alterations in the licensing law. Public houses may remain open thirty minutes longer during the course of the day. That is not a very devastating reform.

There may possibly be an extra thirty minutes in some places where the magistrates so decide.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: What about Wales and Sunday opening?

Mr. Digby: I said at the beginning of my speech that I should not discuss the Bill in relation to Wales. That is a separate issue and I cannot deal with it now.
There has been the recognition that drinking-up time, which has been advocated as of various possible lengths and is now finally decided as ten minutes, is something reasonable, and that it is probably preferable to that last drink being a "bumper", which seems to me the only logical alternative. Finally, we have made a number of restrictions on the clubs in order to enable the police to have a greater control over the undesirable clubs. If that were all that this Bill was to do, I think it would be little enough, but I believe that some of the other provisions in the Bill are perhaps more worth while.
For example, in some guest houses, of which there are a number in my constituency, up to now it has been a practice, I understand, for people to bring in their own drinks and to drink in bedrooms. Curiously enough, hon. Members who take a different view from myself did not seem to think that this practice was a bad thing. Now, if they so wish—and I do not believe that a tremendous number will do so—guest houses will be able to apply for licences, and people will be able to consume their liquor in public downstairs. For myself, I think that is a change for the better, but I do not think that a large number of guest houses will find it possible to give up an extra room. One alteration upon which I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend is that he abolished the rather stringent conditions about the third room, a room which is seldom available in the average guest house.
In the case of restaurants, we have an important change. Restaurants are to get licences easily, and even the hon. Member for Islington, East agreed that it is better that people should drink with their meals rather than drink for drinking's sake apart from their meals. I am quite sure that this will alter drinking habits and that it will be easier to get


a drink when having a meal at a restaurant. There must be many hon. Members in this House who are glad that the practice of turning a restaurant into a club so that people can drink there, or the farce of sending out for drinks, is to come to an end in this country. That is all to the good, because it is one of those anomalies which, in the long run, is not defensible.
Thirdly, there is the question of flexibility. We had a lot of discussion during the Committee stage on how far local flexibility was a practical proposition, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has given a certain discretion to local justices to vary the hours according to local needs, and to make it possible for public houses, out of season, to remain closed for long hours, without being in any danger of losing their licences. That flexibility I think will work well, although it is not so great as some of us hoped we should achieve at one stage.
Fourthly, there have been these changes about motorways, where I find myself in alliance with the teetotal lobby, somewhat to my own surprise. I believe that in tackling this question early, from the beginning of our motorways in this country, we have done the right thing. The fact that, as from the very beginning of the building of motorways, alcohol will not be obtainable anywhere along them is a step in the right direction. Anyone who feels strongly about road safety will see that it does not altogether remove the difficulties about drink and driving, but I believe that if we can make the change at a very early stage like this on our new system of motorways, it is worth a lot of attempts to deal with evils later in the day.
I do not know how far this Bill will change what we may call the drinking pattern of the nation. It is always so very difficult to see whether what we intend to do here will work out in practice, but I hope myself that with the change in the restaurant licences and these other changes, it will mean that people will tend to drink more with their meals and less separately. I should not be sorry if it changed the conception of the public house a little. When I was a young man, I used to spend a certain amount of time on the Continent of Europe, and,

whatever may be our views about our being more or less like them, I always remember with approval that one could go into one of these big cafes without having to buy any alcohol at all. Whether one bought a coffee, a beer or even a brandy was completely immaterial, and one was never faced with a nasty look when not ordering alcohol. Perhaps we may be getting somewhat nearer to that situation if we succeed in slightly changing the drinking pattern of this country by the Bill.
I do not regard the Bill as a very startling or as a very great step forwad. It is a modest change, but I believe that it is the kind of change that the country wants and for which the country is ready.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sure that we have all listened with the utmost interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), particularly as sheer modesty prevented his mentioning that he was responsible for one of the few things in the Bill of which I, at any rate, approve. Through an inadvertent vote, he made it possible, and in fact made it definitely desirable, for the Minister of State to introduce a new code dealing with appeals, and, in introducing that code, felt bound—although to begin with, he did not want to do it, and it was not in the Bill—to give the same right of appeal to those who oppose the granting of new licences as those who sought one. Therefore, for that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I am sorry, however, that the hon. Gentleman talked about what he called the "teetotal lobby". Those of us who are teetotallers need not be ashamed of it, but so far as I know, there is no teetotal lobby. There is in this House a group of over 100 Members, drawn from all sides of both Houses, which is interested in temperance legislation.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? It was not I who coined that term but the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), and it was not challenged when he used it.

Mr. Hall: If I were to pursue that topic, I feel sure that Mr. Deputy-Speaker would pull me up. I can at any rate assure the hon. Gentleman that there is little affinity between myself and


my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), who made a speech which, if I had been on the Government Front Bench, I should have wished had not been delivered, for he indicated that he was going to support the Bill, and then went on to give a good many reasons why it was bad and should be changed. I am going to vote against this Bill because I think it is a thoroughly bad Bill. I am going to vote against it for the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He said, and I take it that other Welsh Members will say again with equal felicity, force and sincerity, what many of us feel about Clause 6. I know that Governments are not supposed to be too nice about the way in which they carry out policies upon which they have decided, but I think that we would have to go back a long way before we found legislation of this kind introduced in this way. The Government must have known—otherwise, they would not have done it in this fashion—that if they had introduced it in a proper and aboveboard manner, it would never have reached the Statute Book. So to do it in this way strikes me as quite unfair to a great Principality and to a race of people which has served this country well for so many centuries.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he ought to be taken up on it. Does he realise that if the Government had not put it in, it is pretty obvious that either myself or somebody else would immediately have done so and, thereby, would have brought it about? Does he not agree with me that it would have been in order to do so? Does he not also further agree that, whereas Scotland has a law of its own, England and Wales stand together with one law?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the House will bear in mind that we are debating the Third Reading of the Bill and that what is in order is restricted to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Hall: That is my quarrel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is in the Bill. I wish that it were not. I know that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has great power and

authority over the Government Front Bench. When he says that if it had not been in the Bill he would have put it in, I am inclined to accept it. I hope to deal with the hon. Gentleman a little later, because during the passage of the Bill he has said some very astonishing things and reference should be made to one or two of them by somebody before this debate ends.
First, I wish to protest against the fact that the Third Reading has come on at this time. With a major Measure of this sort, which makes revolutionary changes in the law, it is grossly unfair that we should have to come to it, as it were, at the fag end of the day and after an all-night sitting, which the Government must have foreseen knowing the state of the Order Paper on the Finance Bill. It is true, as the hon. Member for Dorset, West said, that we had protracted debates in Committee. But there was no filibustering. A good deal of the time was spent on proposals of hon. Members opposite. I make no complaint about that, but that is the fact. No time was wasted by those of us who were against most of the provisions of the Bill. We merely took our share of the time. Many of the proposals and Amendments were tabled by hon. Members opposite, and we supported some of them because we thought that they were worth supporting.
We must remember, too, that the Committee consisted of only forty-five Members. Therefore, the House of Commons, on a Bill of this kind, is entitled to have its say. Originally, the Home Secretary gave us one day for the Report stage. It was a shocking thing to do, and I should like to protest about it. In the end, the Report stage ran on for at least three days, with one or two quite late nights. We are now debating the Third Reading at this late hour, and, as I said, it is grossly unfair to the House that this should be so.
I should also like to protest against the fact that the Home Secretary has put in only sporadic appearances at our discussions. I may be wrong, but I cannot charge my memory with any occasion when a major Bill of this kind was introduced and when the Minister principally concerned with it was not a member of the Standing Committee. I make no complaint against the Minister of State. I wish to reiterate what my hon. Friends and others have said


about his courtesy and patience in Committee, but, nevertheless, he is not the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Bill. We have not had the presence of the Home Secretary at our debates, and we do not have it at this moment.
When I was a small boy we had a china Chinese mandarin which used to nod its head if it was touched. The Home Secretary reminds me of it. He sometimes looks very much like him when he is sitting there. The only difference is that he never nods his head, but he is equally dumb. I repeat that it is wrong and an affront to the House that a Measure of this kind should not have had more attention than it has had from the principal Minister involved.
The Home Secretary moved the Second Reading. He said, as we have been reminded by the Minister of State tonight, that the Government were not wedded to the terms of the Bill and that improvements to it would be welcomed. One would imagine from a statement of that kind that if improvements were to be welcomed a free vote would be allowed on them. But not a bit of it. Hon. Members opposite had to toe the line even though there was a free vote on our side on the Second Reading, and that, to start with, was quite wrong. To do them credit, some Conservative Members who were on the Committee—I see one or two of them opposite me now—put forward some extremely good suggestions which the Minister accepted. But he accepted them under protest. Much has been made, for example, about the change concerning motorways. The Minister of State will remember that he resisted that change right up to the last.

Mr. Vosper: That was not moved in Committee.

Mr. Hall: That is true, but only partially true. An Amendment was moved which covered trunk and similar roads. What those of us who put our names to the Amendment had in mind were the motorways. It was made plain during the discussion that that is what we had in mind. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a Road Traffic Bill coming along and that that would be the proper Bill in which to deal with this matter. The Road Traffic Bill is still coming along, and it is likely to be coming along for another year or more.

However, in the end, under pressure from his own side and backed up by pressure from our side, the Minister accepted the Amendment dealing with motorways. I am very glad that he did. The same applies to the change which has been made about off-licences. An hon. Member opposite moved an Amendment which, the Minister, when he realised how strong feeling was in all quarters, decided to accept.
The reasons for this Bill are very difficult to discover. I am aware of the reasons which have been given for it. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading that one of the reasons for the Bill was that he wanted to wipe out anomalies. There are certainly some anomalies in our licensing legislation, but, surely, they could have been wiped out without having to have such a sweeping Bill as this. Anomalies are inevitable in any legislation. Purchase Tax regulations are full of them, as those who have listened to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) know only too well. The Home Secretary said that the Bill was being brought in partly to get uniformity in opening hours. In fact, the lack of uniformity is more pronounced than ever. Instead of getting more uniformity, we shall have far less.
Then, most astonishing of all, the Home Secretary told us, and the Minister of State reiterated it tonight, that there was a public demand for the Bill. For a little while, I was inclined to accept that assertion at its face value. Since the Bill was introduced, however, and our discussions have got into the Press, I have been astonished to find how little demand there is for it and what a volume of opinion there is against it, not among those who belong to what the hon. Member for Dorset, West called the "teetotal lobby" but among moderate drinkers and ordinary people, particularly those In the licensing trade. They do not want it. They assure me that the hours which they work are long enough already and that if the changes envisaged in the Bill are brought into operation, the cost to them will go up out of all proportion to the extra drink that they might sell. In any event, they value their free time just as much as anybody else does, and this will be greatly lessened.
Is the Bill in its present shape a better Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East was rather inclined to


think that it was. The short answer, I suppose, is that in some directions it is and in other directions emphatically it is not. As a result of pressure, licensed premises are not to be allowed on motorways. The proposed opening till 3 p.m. on a Sunday has gone. What happened in that respect was that the Home Office published its Bill much too soon. If the Government had had their debates and got the Bill through before people became aware of this provision, it would probably still have remained, but, as soon as people noticed it, there was an immediate outcry from housewives—

Mr. Ede: From publicans' wives.

Mr. Hall: —and from publicans as well, and the Government dropped the proposal like a hot cake.
The supply of intoxicants to young people from off-licences has also gone and drinking-up time has been cut by five minutes. That is the most amusing change which has been made, from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. Licence-holders tell me that the change of 5 minutes will make little or no difference to them. They will still have to get the people out of the bar, and after that they will still have to clear up, get the ash trays emptied, sweep up and wash down. With the extra hours which public houses will now have 'to remain open, it will often be midnight and after before the staff get away. Very often, the last bus will have gone, and I am told that the cost of getting staff home by taxi will in some instances, be too heavy for the landlord to bear. All these considerations should have been such that the Home Office was aware of them. Instead, however, the Government apparently have no regard for the individual so long as they can give the appearance of being a liberalising Government carrying through a liberalising Measure.
I do not want to speak too long, because I know that a large number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. There are, however, other parts of the Bill which I find difficult to accept. Something has been said tonight about the apparent improvement in the new definition of what should constitute a meal. The original draft of the Bill referred to "substantial refreshment".

That has now been defined as a "customary main meal", but what a customary main meal is is anybody's guess.

Mr. Hirst: It is obvious.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is a main meal, any way.

Mr. Hall: With some people, it is a sandwich or a couple of sandwiches. To others, it is a three-course meal. I do not want to quarrel about that, however. Although that definition has been included and is all to the good, it does not mean that drink must be taken only with the meal. When we were discussing the matter, it became obvious that a table meal could be a meal taken off a shelf; it would be perfectly possible before a person sat down to his meal or afterwards to stand at a bar and drink, and the bar could be in the restaurant. This makes a great difference to what many people imagine to be the change in the law, a change which, I freely admit, if it meant sitting at a table to have a drink with the meal, was a change considerably for the better from what has been called perpendicular drinking.
I was shocked the other night when the Minister of State refused to accept the change to prohibit young people under the age of 18 being supplied with with drink in clubs. Working-men's clubs overwhelmingly refuse to allow people under 18 to have a drink in their clubs. More often than not, they will not even admit them to membership. But the right hon. Gentleman the other night envisaged a tennis club, for instance, where one has people under 18, and, as far as I understood him, saw no reason why they should not be allowed to have a drink. This makes nonsense of Clause 2 (3), under which justices can refuse a licence to any restaurant or boarding house to which young people habitually resort unaccompanied.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would put a tennis club in the same category as a restaurant or a boarding house when it comes to an application for a licence. I understand not, and that means that tennis clubs and similar clubs where young people foregather will be able to supply intoxicating liquor to adolescents, many of them of quite a


tender age, and it will be quite legal to do so.
The object of the Bill is to increase the facilities for drinking. There is no doubt about that. The Government's case is that the time has come to allow this, but some of us rather doubt that. I do not accept the suggestion that these modern times demand a new approach to this subject. For over 400 years Governments of this country, whatever their complexion, have thought it necessary to control the supply of intoxicating liquor.
We may object to that or accept it, but Government after Government have decided that it was essential in the interests of the community at large that some control should be placed on the sale of intoxicating liquor. The only question which we must ask ourselves today is whether the conditions have changed so much that we can relax the controls which have been found necessary.
The advent of the motor vehicle on the roads has made all the difference to the approach which we and the Government should make to this matter. The casualties on our roads are alarming, and in spite of every effort that is made they seem to be on the increase. Not all, of course, are due to drink, but medical research has shown that alcohol, even in small quantities, lessens the faculties of the driver. That means that even if he takes food—and this has been definitely proved—with his alcohol the effect of the alcohol is still there, although it may be slightly delayed.
This raises a dilemma that the nation will presently have to face. I hoped that the Government might have faced it, but apparently they have run away from it. The dilemma is that if alcohol has such an affect on the individual, and if the majority of us now have cars, to what extent should we permit ourselves to drink when we are driving? The Minister of Transport has laid down the principle, and apparently acts upon it, that "If you drink don't drive, and if you drive don't drink."
Instead of facing this problem, the Government apparently want to widen the facilities and increase the opportunities for drinking. We had hoped that the problem would, at any rate to some

extent, be dealt with in the Road Traffic Bill, but, as we know, that Bill is not likely to reach the Statute Book this Session. It means that the Bill we are now discussing will be in operation before legislation is passed to deal with the difficulties which arise when people who have been drinking drive vehicles.
I shall vote against the Bill with great pleasure. It is a retrograde Measure. It is far too sweeping. It is too early to know what effect this Bill will have on the social habits of the community, but that it will have effects which many of us will deplore, is, I think, definite. I hope therefore that not only as many hon. Members as possible will show their disapproval of the provisions in the Bill in their vote tonight but that when it reaches another place their Lordships will find it possible to take out of this Measure many of its worse features.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: In moving the Third reading of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department said that in drafting it the Government had had in mind all the time the welfare of young persons. I was glad to hear that. He referred to the safeguards in that connection and to the heavier penalties for those who offend against the law. Indeed, he was art pains to draw attention to the increased penalties for offences agaist the licensing laws. I do not disagree with that.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that the Government did not regard this as a charter for increased drinking. I shall say something about that later, but I believe that the Government and my right hon. Friends are sincere when they say that, however mistaken that sincerity might be. I am one of many people who hope that this Bill will not be regarded as such a charter, and that its effects will be innocuous.
My right hon. Friend said—and in this he was supported by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—that we should regard the Bill as a whole. What I imagine my right hon. Friend meant was that we should consider the effect on our society of the different parts of the Bill taken together. In other words, we should consider the good with


the bad, and the different with the indifferent. I do not see how one can do that. I do not think that that is possible
Like every other hon. Member I am delighted to see the repressive—I use that word advisedly—measures in Part III to stop these mushroom clubs which ought never have been allowed to start. I am in favour of that part of the Bill, but I cannot in the same Bill bless something which, without any question of discretion, requires public houses to keep open half-an-hour later on Sunday nights. I must distinguish there between the good and bad parts of the Bill, and I think that every reasonable Member will do the same.
The hon. Member for Islington, East said that the Bill had been materially altered since the Second Reading debate. He is right. He enumerated six major points on which it had been changed, all of which were cogent, important, and thanks be, are now in the Bill. He also used an expression which has been very much bandied about the House when he talked about the Bill being a liberalising Measure. That is using a rather classical and high-class term for something for which I could find much clearer descriptive terms. I do not like the word "liberalising" being used in a way which implies that much more licence is being given in matters of general conduct. I hope that the Bill will not prove to be liberalising in that way.
The hon. Member also said that the Bill had been brought in to deal with anomalies and to attract tourists. There are still some anomalies left which seem to have escaped the notice of the Government. As for tourists, I should like to know how far we are going in order to please them. I have not heard of any great number of tourists who have refrained from coming here in the past because of our so-called antiquated licensing laws. I do not believe that any have refrained. I shall look with interest for the new figures of these would-be drinkers, drinking till 3 o'clock, who will be appearing on these shores in the years to come. I do not believe that the figures will be so different that they will justify this provision in the Bill.
I can well imagine that some tourists who came here in the past and found that, in contrast to the situation in Berlin and Paris, they could not get a

drink until a certain hour in the morning, were rather disappointed, but that they ever refrained from coming here because they knew that that was the situation I cannot believe, any more than any of us know the licensing laws of a foreign capital which we approach for the first time. We know if we have been there before, but not otherwise. This tourist argument is being very much overdone in many ways. I am not at all certain that we are not visiting upon the backs of the tourists our own desire for a little more liberalisation, knowing that the tourists cannot answer back.

Mr. William Shepherd: My hon. Friend will not be able to prove any case by referring to people who do not come to this country. Surely he should pay regard to the views of those people who do come here and have repeatedly told the British Holidays and Tourist Association that they think our existing licensing laws extremely irksome and discouraging.

Mr. Cole: I take my hon. Friend's point. I would make a further point to him. If he can prove that the people to whom he is referring have not come here again there may be something in the argument. We all know that those people have come here again. The argument seems to be more than that. We must have foreign exchange in order to maintain our standard of living, and it appears to be a specious way of maintaining our standard of living to alter our licensing laws in order to persuade foreigners to come here.
As I said just now, I am quite convinced of the sincerity and belief not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for the Bill but the Government themselves about their intentions in bringing it forward. My doubts are whether their sincerity will fructify in practice and lead to our being a better nation. The hon. Member for Islington, East said that he thought that, on balance—and he was most careful about that—the Bill was for our good. I am a little more cautious. I think that we must wait to see how it works. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member is right.
I am pleased to see some of the repressive measures in Part III, although I am sorry that some of them are not


as crystal clear as I would wish. I hope that the lawyers and magistrates who will administer them will understand what is in our minds. It is not the function of judges or magistrates to interpret what appears in HANSARD; their job is to interpret the law as passed by Parliament, which is a very different thing.
I believe I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Islington, East pointed out that there were no powers in the Bill to deal with nefarious clubs which did not have liquor licences. I can see nothing in Clause 23 which requires it to be necessary for the proprietor to hold an alcohol licence if he is to be prosecuted for unlawful conduct. I hope that is right. If it is not, I shall be very disappointed and wish it otherwise.
There are one or two points about what is in the Bill to which, in fairness to myself, I must refer. In Clause 8 (6) there is a reference to the question of regarding Christmas Day and Good Friday and Sundays as weekdays, and the subsection at the end, contains the peculiar expression
and in that section week-day' shall include"—
and for some reason which I cannot discover it goes on to say,
and be deemed always to have included, Christmas Day, when not a Sunday, and Good Friday.
I am sure that there is a good legal reason for it, but in a House to which restrictive legislation is an anathema it seems a strange conclusion.
In subsection (8) of the same Clause—I have already given notice of my intention to raise this point—there is a reference that
nothing in the Sunday Observance Act, 1780"—
which, for the interest of the House, I may say was originally called the Profanation of Sunday Act—shall apply to any extension of hours to three o'clock on a Sunday morning. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has looked at this point again. I should like him to be certain, with the observance or otherwise of the remaining emaciated portions of the Sunday Observance Act. Dancing in this country is illegal on a Sunday and in this three-hour extension past midnight, to which we are about to assent in that subsection, I am wondering

whether this general reference to the Sunday Observance Act is adequate. That is not a point for or against the Bill but a question of using a little intelligence about it.
The second point to which I wish to refer is the announcement, to which reference has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, about this mandatory half-hour extra on Sunday night. It eliminates any question of discretion by the magistrates. I do not believe that every drinker wants it, and certainly not every portion of the trade desires it. Nor will publicans in every case want it. But here it is, and they have to have it.

Mr. Eric Johnson: If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 7 (7), he will find that it states:
Nothing in the Licensing Act, 1953, or this Act, shall be taken to require licensed premises to be open for the sale of intoxicating liquor…
and so on. As was made clear during the Committee stage discussions, a licensee is not forced to keep his premises open.

Mr. Cole: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) has quoted the legal point. But the majority of licensed houses in this country are becoming tied houses. I should like to take the opinions of the twenty or thirty brewery companies about what they would do regarding the houses which are tied to these breweries in one form or another.

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend is not aware of the discussions which have taken place and the fact that the Brewers' Society has said that it will not enforce the additional hours under this Bill upon the tenants.

Mr. Cole: I am very pleased to know that. I did not know of it before. I am sure that a number of my constituents will be pleased to know that the Brewers' Society has made that statement.

Mr. Ede: Will the Minister try to get that put into the Bill in another place where there are plenty of brewers to see that the promise is carried out?

Mr. Cole: I am prepared to admit that it was my lack of knowledge of the conversations which have taken place that led me to the opinion I expressed. It has possibly led other people to think


the same about what might happen. I am delighted to know, as I am sure others will be, that we are wrong.
The third matter I come to is the question of the protection of young people under 18. I shall not rehearse this controversy. Reference has been made to it tonight, and it was fully debated on Monday evening. Talking of anomalies, to which I referred earlier, it seems rather extraordinary that Clause 20 solemnly and rigorously lays down that no chocolate which includes liquors shall be sold to any person under 16, but, if he happens to be in some club, although he may not buy such chocolates, he could, under this Bill, buy any amount of drink which the club sees fit to sell to him.
That is an anomaly which I give to my right hon. Friend to think about. It is laid down in the Bill at present. For a Bill which seeks to think—and which I believe does think—about the welfare of young persons, who after all will be the adults of tomorrow, a Bill which in the actual printed word and in promises we have had is protecting young people under 18, I fail to see why we cannot make this protection comprehensive and to cover clubs and all licensed premises. However, that is the position and we must leave it there.
I end with this thought. I believe this Bill can, and possibly for a time will, give increased facilities for drinking. That I deplore. I do not think we want those increased facilities. I do not think they were asked for by any section, the consumers, suppliers or those who dispense drinks. Nevertheless, I have great faith in all my fellow men. I believe that the pattern and habit of society in this country will not change, will not depreciate, will not get worse and that—despite the additional facilities provided in this Bill, not because of them—we shall take the Bill in our stride. It will go on to the Statute Book ironing out a few anomalies, but creating a few more, yet I think it will go into history as not causing damage to the country.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I join in the complaint which has been made that we are having only half a day for the Third Reading of this Bill.

The Government did not realise it, but today my heart is in Llanelly, where I wished to be in the procession which will be proclaiming there that the Welsh National Eisteddfod for 1962 is to be held in my constituency. However, I felt it my duty to stay here, however long this debate may last, in order to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
I shall say only a few words about the general provisions of the Bill. A word or two ought to be said, although no one has yet mentioned it, about the fact that we are creating a new kind of licence, quite unknown in our licensing laws. I must pay tribute to the Minister of State and to the Solicitor-General for their courtesy. However, they did not think this matter worthy of mention. For the first time we are to give licences as of right. We are removing from the licensing justices a principle embodied in the licensing legislation for a long time, that they have the right to decide in granting licences where there is a public need.
By Part I the criterion of public need now goes. I say to all hon. Members, whether they belong to the "teetotal lobby" or any other lobby, that we are making a very great mistake in that. We are destroying something which on Second Reading the Home Secretary himself said had served the country well. I hope that many hon. Members will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill if only because of that.
The second thing I say, in the hope that it will be considered in another place—I repeat what I said on Monday—is that whatever may be argued, all of us, I am sure, are disturbed about the increase of drinking and of drunkenness among young people. Whether we ourselves like drinking or not, all of us are disturbed about this question. We are all disturbed about its effects and consequences in our lives. I deeply regret that the other day the Minister refused an Amendment, supported by many of my hon. Friends associated with clubs, which would have prohibited the supplying of drinks in clubs to boys and girls under 18. Speaking as a Commoner from Wales, I hope that the other place will have more wisdom than this House when dealing with that question.
I turn to explain why I, as a Welsh Member, will vote against the Bill. First,


I want to make my protest against what I regard—and I use my words after due thought—as the shabby treatment meted out to Wales by the way in which this Bill has been handled. The Bill removes one of the few Acts on the Statute Book which apply specifically to Wales. Not a word was said about it in the Conservative Party's General Election manifesto. I have made many researches, but as far as I have been able to find out, not a word was said about it by any Minister or by any Conservative Member fighting any constituency in Wales. They did not take this issue to the people. They never broached it to them or discussed it with them. It was not an issue If it were their intention to include Clause 6 and the Second Schedule in the Bill, they owed it to the people of Wales to explain what they intended to do if they were returned.
Let me bring it nearer than that. We began this Session, as we begin all Sessions, with a Queen's Speech. I will read to the House the sentence in that speech—it is not my sentence but the Government's sentence—which refers to the Bill:
Legislation will be introduced to provide for a levy on horse-racing and, in England and Wales, to check abuses by registered clubs and to reform the licensing laws.
There was not a word specifically about Wales or about the Act—which was passed in 1881, it is true, but which the Conservative Party eight years ago reaffirmed and consolidated in the 1953 Act. That was consolidated unanimously. Every hon. Member here who was present in 1953 voted for confirming the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act in the 1953 Bill—and that applies to the Ministers, too. There was not a word in the Queen's Speech about that Act. Had there been, then no doubt there would have been speeches on the subject at the beginning of the session.
Secondly, as the right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said, there were no consultations with the appropriate bodies in Wales. For some time after I first came to the House, I served as Secretary of the Welsh Parliamentary Party. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is the present secretary. It was the practice of Governments of all kinds to consult the Members of the Welsh Parliamentary

Party, which included all the Members for Wales of all parties in the House, on specifically Welsh matters. Why did not the Minister consult us on this matter? There was not a word about it.
The only consultation which took place was with the Council for Wales. We representatives of the Welsh people, elected by the people, first heard that the Government had an intention to include this provision in the Bill by reading a report in a newspaper of the meeting which the Minister had with the Council for Wales. It was an extra-ordinarily interesting meeting. I had something to do with setting up the Council for Wales, and as far as I know it is the only hush-hush meeting which the Council has ever had. Generally, Ministers ask the Council to look at a problem and give its views. We have had a number of reports from the Council. In this instance, we learned from the Press that the Minister met the Council and discussed this matter with them before it was ever mentioned to anybody in Parliament. No one knew about it. Wales knows that this is true, even if the House does not.
However, we have the Bill. I have expressed my views about it. I shall oppose it. I am opposed to its provisions. I am opposed to the repeal of the 1881 Act, which was reaffirmed in 1953. I have stated my reasons for opposing it. I do not propose at this hour to detain the House much longer, but I want the Government to realise that they have caused deep offence to and deeply wounded Welsh Nonconformists. I represent in the House of Commons a town and two valleys—the town of Llanelly, the Valley of the Ammon, in which I was born, and the Valley of the Gwenddraeth. They are typical Welsh places, no better and no worse than others. This evening I shall cast my vote for myself only and not for them. The social democracy they built up, their trade union movements, their cultural movements, their political movements, everything connected with them, have been cradled in Nonconformity. I believe that I shall speak for all that is best in their life when I vote against the Bill this evening.
There was a time in the history of our country as a whole when the Nonconformist conscience would have been too powerful to let this Bill pass into law


It is not so powerful now. The Non-conformist conscience has things which are worth preserving, but if it were to pass I should not regret it altogether if it was replaced by something better. I have spent all my life fighting for better material conditions in industry and politics. I fear that we shall go on to a material affluent society which will have no conscience at all.
Perhaps Nonconformity is weak. Perhaps it can be discarded. Perhaps it is a minority. If it is not too late to appeal to the House, I remind hon. Members that we in this country have a great tradition of recognising, and being sensitive to, our obligations to minorities. Not long ago I stood at the Dispatch Box and pleaded with the House and my hon. Friends, against all the traditions of my Nonconformity, to be generous to a religious minority in this country—the Catholics. The House was generous. I hope that the House will realise that it has an equal obligation to recognise, and be sensitive to, its obligation to nonconformity, even if it is a minority.
I hope that my words will not fall on deaf or unsympathetic ears. I know that I have taxed the generosity of hon. Members a great deal during the passage of this Bill. My duty is clear. I have never cast a vote on any issue on which I was more firmly convinced than I am on this issue tonight. I am sure that in voting against Third Reading I shall vote for everything that is best in the life of my country.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I admire and respect the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). It has been my opinion for a long time that he is one of the finest debaters who graces our assembly, but in supporting this Bill I feel as strongly as he feels to the contrary that it is a good Bill; that it will achieve good, and in so far as I have the capacity of persuasion at all I will try to give a few reasons for that belief.
Because I am the fourth Member of this House whose father and grandfather were Liberal Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies and who understood Nonconformity, and because I was brought up at least with that understanding of it, although I do not hold to its principles, being a member of the Church

of England, I do understand and deeply appreciate the Liberal viewpoint—as it was in those days, and as it now resides to a very large extent in the hands of Labour Members opposite.
I want in a moment or two to say a few words about Clause 6 and Wales, because although I have spoken a great deal on this Bill, in the House and in Committee, and have played a very close and active part in a great many of its Amendments—twenty-five days or more in Standing Committee, not to mention those days spent in the Chamber—it will be the first time I have spoken at all on that Clause. That is not because I have not felt strongly on the Welsh issue, but because I thought it right, for reasons that I shall give in a moment, not to intervene.
The first criticism that has been levelled in this matter is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not played any great part in the Bill. Well, I have always been brought up to believe that if one can delegate things to a leader who can put them over with equal ability, it is not necessary to be there oneself, and one thing we have all agreed is that in my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General we have, indeed, had two extremely good generals handling this Bill; and they have managed to do so to the contentment of the House as a whole, and that is quite an achievement.
Having said that, I should also like to say this, and I mean every word of it. For many hours in the Standing Committee the Nonconformists were fighting, and frequently they were fighting me, and I, at any rate, greatly appreciated throughout their courtesy and their moderation. If now, perhaps, a little bit of extra emotion creeps in, that, to say the least of it, is fairly understandable, after a long debate and after what they must regard as quite a serious number of defeats for their principle.
On the other hand, they have, if I may say so, throughout the debate expressed their view in a forthright fashion, and almost man for man. Indeed, though even now any vote would, I think, show that three-quarters or more of the House were against them, none the less the great majority of views expressed so far in this debate have come from them, and rightly so.
The real clash comes right at the start. I do not believe that we need any longer to control the supply of alcohol in the United Kingdom, save only in respect of youth. Therefore, though I support the Bill, I do so not because it is a liberalising Measure and we have to extend a little further to our grown-ups the opportunities for drinking, or because at last, perhaps, the people in the provinces might be allowed to have the same sort of drinking hours that they have had for so long in London because London is grown up and the provinces are not. That is not my view, and it is not the view of the country.
Here I beg hon. Members opposite to recognise that those of us who express this view are speaking for millions of men who have not the capacity to express a view, who certainly hold no strong religious views, and who think, "Well, the Government are not doing so badly, and I hope to heaven we can drink when we want to".
I think that the time has completely gone for Victoriana, and it is not an idle gesture that I have been closely associated with this Bill, as I was with another last year, and as I hope to be with all Home Office legislation which is bringing us up to date, and forming a new social pattern in line with the changes in our times. I assure the House that this Bill will make considerable changes—not small ones—in the social drinking habits of our age. I do not share the view that this is a small Bill; it is quite a big Measure, and I should like to say why I have come to that conclusion.
The constitutional change proposed in the Bill is extremely important. This evening hon. Members have sat throughout the Finance Bill, a Bill dominated by Government. Here, on the other hand, we are seeing the emergence of a new change in the House; legislation largely moulded by the House—

Mr. James Callaghan: With the Whips on.

Mr. Rees-Davies: With no Whip, so far as we have been concerned. There has not been any question of that and I can assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that I have not felt guided at any time save on the one major matter of Wales where I have

been persuaded of the good sense of the Government.
As I say, this constitutional change is important. It is essential that hon. Members should be given greater facilities, by Parliamentary draftsmen and others, to enable them to assist the Government in the changing and moulding of social legislation which, to a large extent, is non-party and which is partisan usually only in the moral sense. New concepts are emerging and, in these days of good Standing Committees, we are beginning to get at what is the real heart of government.
I know that a great many hon. and right hon. Members, high up in Government circles, believe that the Government should govern. I, on the other hand, believe that the House should govern on matters affecting social conscience; and this is one of them. There has been immense pressure from those concerned with the tourist industry to see that tourists who wish to enjoy themselves in this country should, if they so wish, be able to drink as and when they want and as and when they require it.
The first part of the Bill is, in simple terms, a means of ensuring that any adult may have a drink with a meal at any time when he or she would normally have a meal. Consequently, there has been quite a substantial change. I do not believe that one can ever apply a test of public need. It is not really a question of need. It is, really, a question of training. It depends whom one is. I was brought up, at any rate from a fairly young age—from 16, 17 or 18 onwards—not to think it wrong to have a beer or a glass of wine with a meal. As a result, by the time I was about 21, although I did not have the smoking habit, I was playing for the Cambridge cricket side and I would have my drink of beer and wine. We went to cricket and tennis clubs, some of us being 17 or 18, and we would usually have a drink. Therefore, how could I come to this House and oppose this Bill without being a hypocrite?
It seems manifestly right to me that one should decide, first of all, whether one believes, in this modern age, that there should be a severe control on alcohol. I do not believe that there should. The other day someone, I think from the B.B.C., said to me that this is


really a sort of trades union Bill. I said that, in a sense, it is.
Part I aims to ensure that one can have a drink with a table meal at any time one wants a drink. It also says that in hotels and boarding houses which wish to have a licence—and many of them will not—one can have a drink if one wants to. A large number of such hotels and boarding houses in Thanet will not seek licences because there is not sufficient demand. While many of them will not wish to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill, others will.
People like the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) and others, including Nonconformists, who wish to come to Thanet, can stay at hotels and boarding houses that are not licensed. Such people will have opportunities of staying at "dry" premises in London and throughout the country. At the same time, however, those who want to drink will be able to do so inside their hotels or boarding houses without having to go to the nearest off-licence and bring their drink back with them to the establishment at which they are residing.
If the proprietors of such premises are of the proper character and run their premises correctly they will be able to obtain licences and, with the extended general licensing hours, people will be able to get a drink in public houses or hotels until a slightly later hour. In London tourists from all over the world will be able to dine until midnight and drink until 12.30 a.m. if they so desire. That is what I particularly want to see. The British Travel and Holidays Association and the Hotels and Restaurants Association, not only pursuing their own interests, but in the closest possible touch with the demands of the people in this country and in every part of the world, came to one not purely as lobbyists but saying, "This is what the country needs and this is what the demand is", and I am satisfied that they were right. That is what my friends, as they have travelled round the world, have said time and again. That is what Part I is about.
As to Part II of the Bill, the licensed trade itself is the greatest obstacle to extending the hours, other than the Nonconformists. Consequently, 9½ hours is the maximum period for which one can reasonably ask. Those who say that we should 'sweep away the licensing laws

are equally wrong, because men and women must have reasonable and proper working hours. Therefore, the only real question which arises is whether this opening period could be made flexible or not. The Government, who I am afraid to say were not wholly with me, said "Yes." So we have got flexible hours and we can have different opening hours on different days of the week from Monday to Saturday, but the period can be only 9 hours.
I should like the licensee to be able to choose his own 9 hours out of the 24 hours. I did not think that the Government would have disagreed with that, but they have said that 11 o'clock must be the latest closing hour. In cities like Manchester and Birmingham on a Friday or Saturday night a man may want to stay up till 11.30 p.m. I do not think that Nonconformity can argue that if a grown-up workman stays up till 11 o'clock at night having a glass of beer it is all right but that he should not be allowed to stay up till 11.30 p.m. That is what I find difficult to understand.
I do not think that alcohol is evil in itself. I find that drinking with meals is more beneficial than drinking without a meal. I do not want "pub" crawling to continue. That is why I coined the word—I thought it was quite attractive at the time—the "prub". I believe that we shall see a social change in our time and the "pubs" will become all-purpose restaurants. I believe that we shall see the larger "pubs" taking over and the smaller "pubs" gradually turning in their licences.
As this evolves, we shall get what I want to see—one can see it in one or two places already, in Hemel Hempstead for instance—places where the family can go, the "prub", with the restaurant in one part, the men's bar, and the family bar where wives can go and where even children can have their lemonade, and if the "old man" wants to drink alone he can go to the men's bar. So we shall see the end of the old small "pub" designed for drinking only and the emergence of the "prub", the development of the hotel and restaurant, leading to something new and more attractive and better for our social future.
I was rather hurt when one hon. Member suggested that I was saying something derogatory about Nonconformity.

Mr. G. Thomas: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Other hon. Members hold views which are contrary to the views which I am expressing. That I appreciate and understand. I understand that they do not agree with the views that I am expressing, but just as they have the right to the adherence to their views, I am sure they will concede to me the equal right to the views which I am expressing.
I come now to the clubs. It is important to ensure that we do not change their constitution and structure. It is still necessary to look at their voting rights and ensure that the good clubs are not excluded by the bad. The strengthening of Part III is vital. I believe that it has been effectively done, and I am sure that there will not only be no drinking clubs of the old kind in the West End of London, but there will be no need for anyone to try to operate that type of club. The man who will try to operate in vice will be cornered, if not by this Measure, at least by recent decisions of the courts. I see no danger, therefore, of the destruction of moral fibre to which one of my hon. Friends referred.
I wish now to reply, with every moderation, to what the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said about Wales, and to make certain explanations. I have never before said a word on this subject, either in Committee or in the House.
First, I believe that it would have been right to introduce this Bill in Wales completely. That is my view, as I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate. I believe that it is far better for Wales that it should happen in this way than that the present system of drinking should continue. I say that for this reason. There are more drinking clubs in Wales than in England. I have seen more people drinking on a Sunday in Wales than in England.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. He said that there are more drinking clubs in Wales than there are in England. Is he aware that the Home Secretary, in reply to a Question from me some weeks ago, gave figures which proved that the number of clubs in Wales and the number in England worked out at about the same pro rata, about one to every 2,000 people.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Perhaps I should have said that there are more drinking clubs per county in Wales than there are per county in England. That would, perhaps, have been more accurate, I agree. Suffice it to say that there is a very much higher ratio of drinking clubs in Wales than there is in England, with the exception of the West End of London. [Interruption.] All right. This is not vital to the argument.

Mr. G. Thomas: Then why say it? It is sneering.

Mr. Rees-Davies: What is of vital importance to the argument is that there is very considerable drinking in Wales on a Sunday at present, and it takes place in clubs. The obvious fear of hon. Members opposite—a genuine fear—is that if local option prevails the Welsh people, in having their say on the matter in a properly conducted election, will decide that they no longer wish to be so limited.
I should have been with the Welsh Members who pursue that line had they been prepared to fight this as a true issue which would have meant closing the clubs altogether on Sundays. Unfortunately, this idea of closing the clubs on Sunday would merely have resulted in Nonconformity losing the battle altogether. If one had put in an Amendment, as I wanted to do, for the purpose of excluding club drinking as well as public house drinking on Sunday, in order to get the issue right, that would in the end have been regarded as a trick, because the club members would have voted with the public houses and excluded the alternative altogether.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. J. Griffiths rose—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall give way to the right hon. Member in a moment. Therefore, purely on that ground, it was not done. Let us suppose that the Government had not introduced—

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Griffiths rose—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment or two. I am dealing with the heart of the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that what had been done was shabby, and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said


that it was almost the act of a cardsharper to include Clause 6.
Had the Bill come forward without Wales being referred to at all, Welshmen in Wales, apart from those in the House, would definitely—I am sure I shall have confirmation of this from another quarter—have sought to include Wales altogether without any right to be consulted. When the right hon. and learned Member says that Welshmen were not consulted, I ask him to note that what the Government have done—I want this to be clearly understood—is to defend Nonconformity against me and my hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), in his Second Reading speech, made perfectly clear that we wished to include Wales completely. They would not have had the opportunity of an election, which they will now have. I say quite frankly that I certainly would have done so.
Therefore, on this issue, the Government have fought against their own back benchers and have defeated them good and soundly, and that is the reason why in Committee we did not fight this battle but accepted local option, a view which I find, constitutionally, most unattractive. If we are to have a referendum on this matter, I say that I do not like it one little bit.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I want to correct what the hon. Gentleman has said. He said that we had not presented a clear issue, and that the clear issue would be to include the clubs as well. I am not sure whether he was present in the Committee at the time, but no doubt he has read the proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and myself tabled an Amendment to bring in the clubs, but the Government rejected it and it was turned down by the Committee.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely justified in making that comment. I was immensely attracted to his Amendment. I wanted to do it, but I did not do it on the ground that if we brought in the clubs in actual fact it would be a very much more difficult battle than otherwise.
I want to conclude now, because I must not keep hon. Members—

Mr. G. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that we also suggested that the ballot paper should contain, not one question, but a tripartite question which would separate the questions of closing the clubs, public houses and other licensed premises, so that the difficulty which he has mentioned, namely, that taking both or all three lumped together would prejudice the issue, would not have arisen?

Mr. Rees-Davies: That depends on the view one takes on elections. I take the view that we are very lucky to get people to put a cross in the right place with one question, let alone several questions. For that reason, I think that the suggestion, ideal though it is for those who understand the issue, would not be practicable.
I did not want to say anything on the Welsh issue. There are many of us who, first of all, dislike this idea of local option, and who, secondly, say that Wales is not Scotland. Wales has the same law as England. Many of us practise on the Welsh circuit, and go around Wales. Scotland has a different law. Wales decided of its own volition to be part of England. Scotland, as we well know when we see Scotsmen in the House, has an entirely separate law.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is all right to give way to an hon. Member, but not to more than one at the same time, which causes confusion.

Mr. John Morris: Surely the crux of the matter is that Wales has a general law which is common to both England and Wales, but, regarding Sunday opening, it has a different law.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is an argument with which I do not agree, but it is an argument.
I want to conclude by saying that in 1881, when that matter was raised, and I will not go too far back, there were no clubs in those days. There is now a very large number of clubs, and if I may have the temerity to say this, even the Welsh Tourist Board, which has been referred to on this matter, is in favour of this Sunday opening, and not against it.

Mr. T. W. Jones: That is not true.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am not guilty of saying that, but we have a letter from that Tourist Board, which supports it and is not against it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Tudor Watkins: On a point of order. Since I am a member of that Tourist Board, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot conceivably be a point of order. The hon. Gentleman may or may not give way.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I have the letter about this, and it would only lead to argument if I dealt with it. [Interruption.] We often have two Scots arguing. To have two Welshmen arguing, particularly if one of them has Irish blood in him, is too much. I shall leave some other hon. Member to take up the cudgels for the Welsh argument.
I am sure that everyone has done his best to improve the Bill. A considerable number of improvements to it have been made by both sides. I am sure that those in the country who think that we have been too restrictive will appreciate that we have had our difficulties in getting liberalisation to the extent that we wanted. I hope that the consumers will bear in mind that the trade and the people who have to work in it must have reasonable working hours. It is along those lines that Parts I and II of the Bill will work to the benefit of the country and, I have no hesitation in saying, will lead every foreigner coming to this country next year to say, "I need have no fears of being able to get a drink in my hotel or in a restaurant when I want it". That will certainly be of benefit to the tourist industry.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Goronwy Roberts.

Mr. Watkins: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether he would be kind enough to show me the letter which he has had from the Welsh Tourist Board?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) bore every sign of having sat down.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has said so many

things with which I totally disagree that I had better not try to deal with those but should try to select something that he said with which I do agree. He said that the real point of this Bill is whether there should be control of alcohol. I entirely agree with him that the real difference is between those who are against restriction and control and those who believe that there should be fairly considerable restriction and control.
I propose to vote against the Bill on two grounds, one general and one specific. The general ground is that I believe that the Bill will inevitably be harmful to the character of the people of Britain at a time when they need all their strength and sobriety to face the immense economic and social challenges with which they are confronted. The second ground is that I wish to join the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in protesting against the manner in which Wales has been treated in the Bill.
To revert to the general point, it is possible to adopt one of three attitudes or policies in relation to alcohol. First, there is total prohibition. Few people in the country or in the House would agree with that. Secondly, there is the policy of unrestricted sale, to which I rather think the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet would lend support and which the Government, in the Bill, seem to be well on the way to supporting. At least the Bill originally provided that off-licence premises might remain open literally day and night. That has been amended, but the original intention was of that magnitude.
Thirdly, there is the policy, which I and those who think as I do support, of control and restriction and, indeed, of repression in these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) stated that he did not believe that the evils of drink could be countered by repressive measures, but he went on to list five or six progressive measures with which he wholly agreed and which would lead him to support the Bill in the Lobby.
For the last forty or fifty years, Governments of all complexions, drawn from the three great political parties, have agreed that alcohol, being what it is, a


substance of great potential danger to the individual and to society, must be controlled and restricted. The argument for that policy is non-partisan. It is not confined to teetotallers. Sensible people, whether they drink or not, agreed long ago that the potential dangers of excess in drinking are such that the Government and the country must control and restrict its use. Experience has shown that that policy is the right one.
Until about the beginning of the First World War, we had a system of non-restriction, or something closely allied to it, with calamitous results. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has graphically described what happened in those conditions before the great changes of 1915. After a few months of war, however—and war has a way of revealing mercilessly the weaknesses as well as the strength of the people—all parties in the State agreed that there was a case for control and control was accepted. It continued in the inter-war years with little change and carried on right throughout the Second World War and up to the present time.
What we have had with beneficial results is a system of control and restriction which, by and large, has worked well. The Government, however, are now abandoning that system, which most people would agree, has worked with the exception of a few anomalies and which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) indicated, could be put right. They are instituting a major revolution in our way of life, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet described it.
The hon. Member is quite right. This will lead to a major revolution. It will affect social habits. It will change the direction of individual lives. It will cause great hardship, worry and anxiety. It will add to the numbers every year who take up prematurely the drinking habit and the number of those who begin to indulge in it to excess.
The general argument based upon the experience of the past is surely conclusive. What about our experience of the present? Before we let the Bill have its Third Reading, we should ask ourselves whether this is really the time for a major relaxation of those controls and

restrictions. This is a time when, it must be agreed, convictions for drunkenness among young persons under the age of 21 have doubled in six years, rising from a little over 3,000 in 1953 to over 6,500 in 1959. One could give other figures which prove that this is certainly not the time when a Bill of this kind should be sanctioned by the House of Commons.
There is also the figure about death on the roads. No one will deny that many of the cases of death and maiming on the road do not arise from indulgence in strong drink. Since 1948 deaths on the roads have trebled, and last year the number of those killed or hurt approached 350,000. At this time and in these circumstances it is criminal that the Government should introduce a Measure which greatly extends facilities for drinking and the hours during which drink can be sold. If any change were necessary, there should, in view of these facts and figures, have been a sober appraisal of where the law should be tightened up.
It is difficult for a Welsh Member to restrain his feelings about the way Wales is being treated. I see that the Minister for Welsh Affairs is at last in his place to listen to our complaints. I say to the Home Secretary that Clause 6 and the Second Schedule are the result of the worst possible advice about Welsh policy that any Government could have received. I am certain that the Home Office never intended to introduce these features into the Bill, to insert this grotesque method of dealing with the Welsh question into a general Bill and to hold local option polls on this question. It was something dreamed up somewhere else and wished upon the Home Office—and now it wishes that it had not listened.
These polls cannot be conducted with dignity and authority even with the Amendments which the Government have inserted. If the Government persist in implementing Clause 6 and the Second Schedule they will be faced with recurrent headaches to successive Home Secretaries and Solicitors-General—because I do not want to leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of this. This thing is not workable. The Government may persist in holding these polls in the autumn, but I prophesy that they will only be held once, because the provisions are not workable. In any case,


Clause 6 should not be in the Bill. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that if the Government had not introduced a provision of this sort he and other English Members would have done so. By what right?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am just as much entitled to speak as a Welshman as is the hon. Member, even if I am not at the moment representing my native land. There are scores and scores of Welshmen in Thanet and elsewhere.

Mr. Roberts: I asked by what right because I appeal to every section of the House to understand our position. We are thirty-six Welsh Members out of 625. When the most specific Welsh question comes before the House, anything that we can do is nullified by sheer force of numbers. The numerical majority has no right, by sheer force of numbers, to override the desires and the will of the Welsh Members.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is why we have local option.

Mr. Roberts: Local option is not the answer. If it were, why have Members of Parliament at all? Why not settle everything by local option? While we are on that subject, I ask the Solicitor-General whether, now that the idea is to be democratic and enable the Welsh people to settle these questions for themselves—this is quite a change—we may look forward to being allowed to settle other questions in this democratic way.
For instance, is it proposed that the various Welsh counties shall decide by local option whether they shall receive German troops? Or is it intended that; there shall be local option either by county or throughout Wales on the question of leasehold reform? The Principality is demanding the reform for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has been assiduously and devotedly arguing in this House. Can we look forward to the application of self-determination by this democratic process in regard to questions like that?
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that it is high time that Wales was granted the means of settling its own specific problems by the Welsh people in Wales, leaving the Parliament of the United Kingdom to concentrate on the great issues which face the peoples of Britain as a whole.
The House deals with international, economic and local issues—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member to whom I was listening with much interest, but it is a little difficult to believe that all that is within the rules relating to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Roberts: Oddly enough, Mr. Speaker, I think that I agree with you. Having been the recipient of a good deal of silent kindness from the Chair more than once, may I reciprocate by drawing my remarks to a close and simply say that those of us who have opposed the Bill on principle have done so not because we are prohibitionists or anything like that. We think that strong drink, by its very nature, and by the experience of individuals and of society of its possible effects, must be very carefully controlled as to facility, time of sale, and availability.
As a Welsh Member, I join my hon. Friends in protesting once more against the treatment of the Principality in this way by the Government, and I ask the House to join us in throwing out this Bill, if only because it is an insult to the Welsh people.

9.54 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: This Bill has been put forward by my right hon. Friend as a liberalising Measure. Various views have been expressed on that point, but there can be no dispute about the liberal way in which my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend have conducted the Committee and other stages of the Bill.
We on this side of the House cannot complain that we have not had our say in respect of the Bill. In that respect the Standing Committee considering this Bill was different from certain other Standing Committees on which I have served during my time in the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that in a way the Bill has been formulated by the views of hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee and that we may be evolving a new method of framing our social legislation. I hope that the Standing Committee which considered this Bill will be an example to other Committees which consider social legislation.
My right hon. Friend has been good enough to accept a number of Amend meats to the Bill. Though I have a special constituency interest in the Bill, to which I shall refer later, by supporting other general Amendments I have derived a certain amount of vicarious satisfaction
As individual Members we often feel that we do not get the credit we deserve for the things we do, and it is gratifying if, on occasion, we receive credit for things that we do not do. It was with intense gratification, therefore, that after the Committee stage I received an airmail letter from a writer in Columbus, Ohio, informing me that it had been announced on the radio throughout America that I was sponsoring a Bill providing that water should be served in restaurants throughout this country. The writer asked for more particulars about my Bill. I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) for having stolen their thunder on the other side of the Atlantic, Whoever has the credit, there are certain establishments in the City of London in which I shall not have lunch or any other meal in future without having a copy of this Measure protruding from my pocket.
I want to register my reservations about Part I of the Bill, and to echo the doubts I expressed in Committee whether sufficient control will be provided over restaurant licences. I still think that we may have been a little too free with them. I hope that my right hon. Friends, including the Home Secretary, will keep an eye on the way in which these restaurant licences are granted and the sort of people who obtain them. My doubts, however, are not sufficient to cause me to refrain from supporting the Bill if a vote is called tonight. I am happy to support my right hon. Friends in regard to the main functions of the Bill.
I have to thank my right hon. Friend, in particular, for accepting the Amendment relating to the Carlisle State Management Scheme. Carlisle was rather a late entry into the field—even later than the Principality of Wales—but it made a certain amount of progress because of the sympathy of my right hon. Friend in accepting my Amendment

relating to restaurant licences and a further Amendment—I am not quite sure whether I can call it mine—relating to clubs in Carlisle. I apologise for not being in the House when the Amendment was moved on Report, and I do not want to bother my right hon. Friend for a reply on the matter now, but I hope that I shall be able to have a word with him about it, because on looking at it I find it a little untintelligible if it is supposed to be my own brain child, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can explain it to me in clear terms.
During our debates we have not considered the Carlisle scheme as a whole, and I have refrained from pressing my right hon. Friend on the subject in view of the late stage at which we considered certain aspects of it. However, it may be that his mind is not entirely closed. Now that we have gone so far in considering the scheme, and he has been good enough to pay a personal visit to Carlisle, so bringing the subject into his range of personal experience, he may agree to give further consideration to the whole question.

Mr. J. T. Price: Since the hon. Gentleman has the honour of representing the City of Carlisle, I should like to ask him a direct question. Is he informing the House now of some kind of opposition—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Price: The point I should like to put to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) is whether, in view of his remarks in the last few minutes, he is indicating to the House that as the Member of Parliament for Carlisle he is opposed in principle to the Carlisle experiment which, so far as my investigations go, has been a success?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot reply to that within the rules of order relating to a Third Reading debate.

Dr. Johnson: May I ask the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) to listen to what I have to say—

Mr. Speaker: No. If that is what the hon. Member is proposing to discuss, it will be out of order on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Price: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. If some point of order has been raised, I am unaware of it.

Mr. Price: With respect, may I raise this point of order? If it is not in order for me to refer to the Carlisle experiment, how can it be in order for the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) to deal with it in his speech?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was dealing with it. He was suggesting that the Home Secretary might have some further reflections about it. Had it not been so near to ten o'clock I should have stopped the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Johnson: Relative to this experiment, I think that my right hon. Friend must stop and ask himself what on earth he is doing running a brewery, and for a number of reasons I have suggested—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must assist me by relating his observations to the express provisions in the Bill.

Dr. Johnson: In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I curtail my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and speak to the Amendments which my right hon. Friend has so kindly accepted during the discussions on this Bill? I hope that on future occasions, and starting from the circumstances that he has given during the proceedings on the Bill, he will consider the scheme as a whole with a view perhaps to transferring it to an independent foundation of some kind. The profits might go to the arts or humanities or to a worthy scientific experiment rather than be under the direct control of the Home Office.
With those few remarks I should like to draw my speech on this Bill to a conclusion by again congratulating my right hon. Friend on the way he has steered

this Bill through the Committee stage and to thank him again for the special consideration which he has given to my constituency.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: This is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking on this Bill throughout all its stages, and I am not sure that I am altogether attuned to the bandying atmosphere which has developed. I wish to make one or two comments about the provisions in Clause 6. I agree with my hon. Friends who have expressed the view that this matter should have been taken as a separate issue. It has not been possible for hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies to express their views upon it in a substantive form until today. Now we are being asked to express our views on it in connection with a number of other issues with some of which we may agree and with others of which we may disagree.
There is no doubt a very strong feeling in Wales that this is an issue on which Welsh Members of Parliament should have a special voice and an opportunity to express their views. I regret that the Home Secretary did not introduce a separate Measure dealing with this issue. The more I look at the Bill the less I like it. There are same things in it that I am not enthusiastic about and there are others to which I am actively opposed.
I think, for example, that Part I, dealing with drink with meals is drafted in a way that, unless it is taken in hand by the justices, can lead to a substantial extension of drinking. I know that there are many hon. Members who do not mind that. On the whole, I do. Maybe it was my Nonconformist Band of Hope upbringing that causes me to think like that. I was only six years of age when my elder sister guided my infant fingers in signing the pledge. I adhered to it for many years and was none the worse for that.
As I have embarked on this personal biography, let me say that I kept the pledge until I was a man of substantial years and I was none the worse for it. I do not want to encourage drinking. I do not believe that it is a good thing, especially for young people. I very much regret that the Amendment which would


have put further restrictions on drinking by young people was resisted. Much is said, sometimes scornfully, about the moral fibre of the nation. Great play is made about it, but there is such a thing as a climate of opinon. I am getting the feeling that the climate of opinion is moving too far the wrong way at present.
I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friends, but I do not think that drinking a glass of beer on a Sunday is going to affect the moral fibre nearly as much as the philosophy which I heard expressed recently, "You can get away with as much as you can". That I believe to be much more dangerous, but I feel that this is a Bill which we should all view with considerable reluctance. It has something to be said for it, because it attempts to deal with the bogus clubs. To that extent I am in favour of it.
If we can do anything to clean up those clubs I am all for the Bill, but we are being asked to vote for a very mixed bag of measures, some of which I agree with and to some of which I am opposed. I am now speaking as the Member for Cardiff, South-East. It would be possible to abstain from voting on this Measure and not to declare myself. Frankly, if I were an English Member I should be half inclined to let it go and let the Government get on with it, but, in view of the nature of the Bill, and as a Welsh Member, I believe I have a duty to say where we stand on this matter.
I have had a great deal of contradictory advice and instruction from constituents. There is no doubt, as some of my hon. Friends have said, that Welsh Nonconformity feels itself deeply attacked and offended by the action of the Government. I have had representations from the Free Churches in my constituency. I have met their representatives and talked about this matter with them at very considerable length. I have also had representations from the clubs. I have met representatives from all of them, at least all who asked to come to talk to me—eight in number. We had a long talk in a club where alcoholic refreshment was provided. I have met the licensed victuallers. I have also had letters, not many, from constituents with no particular interest in the matter.
I can claim that I am fairly well instructed in the views of constituents in

so far as they have been expressed. I should not say that there is any great enthusiasm about this Bill. Their attitude ranges from indifference to very active hostility. But I am satisfied that if they were asked, on the whole they would like to be able to express their view about the opening of public houses on Sundays. My view is of less concern in this matter. I have stated their view as far as I have been able to ascertain it.
I have to decide whether I shall vote for a Clause which will give them the opportunity to decide. Because I think that, on balance, as far as I can make it out, they would like the opportunity to decide for themselves, I shall cast my vote in favour of the Bill.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: All hon. Members who have been through the Committee stage will agree that the Members for Wales have put their case with a persistence and, if I may say so, with an agreeableness which has commended itself to all. I do not propose to enter into the rights and wrongs of the Welsh issue. Obviously, from the point of view of principle I should have preferred the House to deal with the issue outright. It is clear that from the point of view of principle that would have been the more desirable way. But I accept the compromise which the Government have proposed, and I hope that many hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies will take the view expressed by the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and will come with us into the Lobby in favour of the Bill.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the way in which they have dealt with an extremely difficult and trying Bill. I doubt whether there is any other issue which Parliament can raise which impinges on social questions quite as much as does licensing. Almost every hon. Member has a view upon almost every aspect of this issue. Moreover, the problem which I see in the Bill is that there is a conflict of interest within the trade and often an alignment of interests between some sections of the trade and some sections of the teetotal lobby. In an endeavour to steer a good middle course between those conflicting interests and to bring about a liberal measure


of social reform, my right hon. Friends have had an extremely difficult task, and I believe that they have acquitted themselves most ably in it.
Hon. Members opposite who support the teetotal lobby have said that this is a transcendent measure of liberation, almost of licence. But if we look through the provisions we find that, with the exception of the restaurant licence, there is nothing in the Bill which can by any means be described as revolutionary. It is a modest measure of liberation which I should say is well within the compass of the socially restrained and responsible people of this community. Unlike some hon. Members who are members of the teetotal army, I believe that on the whole we have a responsible and well-disciplined people. Of course we have drunks, but if the Bill reduced the hours of drinking to three hours a day there would still be drunks in our midst.
There is no evidence, and none of the teetotal army has produced an iota of evidence, to show that an extension of drinking hours will bring about adverse social consequences. I am prepared, on the other hand, to assert without any doubt that giving the facility for drink with food will have a beneficial effect upon the drinking habits of the people of the country, and I am convinced that a few years of experience will show that that assertion is true.
I have been concerned with Licensing Bills in the House for the past fifteen or sixteen years, and it is comforting to me to see the difference between the attitude of the House towards this Bill and the attitude towards the Licensing Bill in 1949. Then a relatively small handful of Members dominated and tyrannised the House. A small minority of people compelled the House to produce a Measure much more illiberal than the ability of the nation justified.
I am glad to say that today the domination of the teetotal lobby is at an end and the House is prepared to judge the issues not on the question whether they will offend a certain element of Nonconformist opinion, but on the question whether these issues are ones which should be decided upon the broad basis of what is good for the community as a whole. This is a great change which I wholeheartedly welcome, because I

have been greatly angered at the way in which a minority in the House and in the country have tried to trammel the lives of the majority of people. I say this as one who is not interested in drink. I say to teetotal hon. Members that they should try to have the same liberal attitude—

Mr. Llywelyn Williams: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the teetotal lobby, as he calls it. Has he never heard of the brewers' lobby?

Mr. Shepherd: I have, indeed. I said earlier that during the course of the Bill there was an unholy alliance between the brewers, on the one hand, and the teetotallers, on the other. The brewers wanted to restrict sales to their own avenues, and the teetotallers wanted to restrict sales altogether. During the course of the Bill I have heard of the effect of the brewers' lobby. I say with all sincerity that it is quite wrong for hon. Members who are teetotallers to try to inflict upon the rest of the community the views which they hold. If people want to drink, and drink within reasonable moderation, there is no reason why they should not. If the "pubs" are open for another half hour, no teetotaller need be forced into a "pub" for the extra half hour.
I want to refer to the special hours certificates, in which I have been particularly interested. I am very glad that we have been able to get an extension of hours to three o'clock on each day except Sunday. I have had some experience with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in the operation of special hours certificates. I very much appreciated the really liberal-minded manner in which he, a teetotaller, was prepared in 1949 to face up to the realities and give establishments in the West End the opportunity of special hours certificates.
I have said before that this experiment has been justified, but it has been a difficult experiment. The police have had extreme difficulty in keeping the regulations up to date, because the hours have been too short and it has been extremely difficult to conduct these establishments on a basis of reasonable profit. I believe—this was the real reason, among others, why I pressed the Amendment to extend the hour to three o'clock—that, if we extend the hour to three


o'clock, there will be no incentive for any establishment to serve after hours. If an establishment serves after hours, I hope that the magistrates will not take the lenient view which magistrates during the past two or three years have taken of offences committed by licensees of special hours certificate establishments. In the past few years magistrates have inflicted fines of £10, £20 and £30 in respect of establishments serving drinks up to four o'clock These are derisory fines and do nothing to stop the individual profiting by his misdeeds. When the Bill becomes an Act and we get licensed service until three o'clock and licensed consumption until 3.30 on every weekday, including Saturday, I hope that magistrates will then take a most serious view of any infringement of the Act beyond those

hours. If they do not they will not be serving the community as they should.
I sum up by saying that I believe this to be a sound, liberalising Measure. It is a compromise as, of course, such political matters always are. It has been said that one could do away with the whole gamut of licensing law without any serious social consequences, but the country is not yet prepared for that. In this Bill, the Government have produced a sound measure of reform, which will give to every person an opportunity of taking alcoholic refreshment when and where it is reasonable to do so. It will not give offence to any other section of the community that may oppose that point of view. It is a sound Measure, and I am quite convinced that when our teetotal friends look back in five years' time to this occasion they will say, "Why did we prophesy such dire consequences from this Bill?"

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: As a democrat, I have had to exercise a great deal of restraint, while listening to some of my Welsh colleagues denouncing the principles contained in Clause 6. Several bouquets have been bestown on the Minister and the Solicitor-General by hon. Members in all parts of the House, but I think that mine is the first Welsh bouquet they have received. The Minister of State deserves the congratulations, the esteem and high regard of the Welsh people for his strenuous and determined resistance to the barrage of rhetoric and intense, high-voltage protests in Committee by those who expressed indignation and disgust because, for the first time in eighty years, the people of Wales are to have the opportunity to decide matters for themselves.
On what grounds do my Welsh colleagues object to Clause 6? Some of them have accused the Government of cowardice because they did not bring in a major Bill to deal with the position in Wales. I leave hon. Members to imagine what would have been the fury of my Welsh colleagues in such a case. They would have accused the Government of wilfully applying their overall majority of a hundred in order to impose their will upon the Welsh people, and, in the absence of any authority for the Government doing that, I would have supported such a protest. As has been said, on this issue the Government have no mandate. The matter has never been an issue at any General Election, so they are not able to act in that way. Neither has any Welsh hon. Member the right to decide for himself that he shall be the judge of what the Welsh people require in this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) deplored the fact that the provisions contained in Clause 6 had been included in the Bill without anyone in Wales having been consulted. He deplored the fact that the Council of Wales had not been consulted and that the opinions of other representative bodies in Wales had not been sought. But I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that even if they had been consulted by the Government on the question of Sunday opening, what right would they have had to have

spoken on behalf of the people of Wales? What right has the Council for Wales or any other organisation to claim to be the voice of 2½ million Welshmen?
For that reason—which is a very simple one—it must be realised that there is no authority, no mandate, no consulted representative opinion existing on this matter. It is, therefore, fair and proper that the people of Wales should exercise their democratic prerogative to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to have Sunday opening. There should not be any attempt made by any of the 36 hon. Members representing Wales to impose their private standards for life on the community as a whole.
I listened with extreme interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and I appreciate that it was his proudest moment in his life when he stood at the Box to advocate and observe the rights of the minority. That is the sort of approach every Nonconformist should have. There must be tolerance and understanding, and both of these virtues have always been associated with the Nonconformist movement in Wales.
We—and I claim to be a Noncomformist by tradition—have always realised that there must be tolerance towards others. Tolerance must exist if we are to obtain what is right in life and to uphold the sacrifices that were made by those who originally formed the Noncomformist movement in Wales. Freedom of conscience and liberty of the individual are of paramount importance. That is why the feelings that existed in the heyday of the Nonconformist movement in Wales fifty years ago exist today.
For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friends, whatever their opinions may be about other facets of the Bill, and I shall not speak about many other points which some hon. Members may not consider are in tune with the social requirements of the community—to take the right course. I hope that in the dying hours of this day hon. Members vote to do one thing: to liberate the people of Wales from the tyranny and the bigotry that has dominated their lives for over eighty years.
What have the Nonconformists to fear from Clause 6? What have they to fear from giving the people of Wales the right to decide by ballot? Apparently they fear that this great culture of ours that has withstood the challenges of succeeding marauders from Europe, that has beaten back the English invaders, this glorious heritage that has withstood the test of time—this imperishable glory will be mortally wounded because somebody in Wales is going to have a drink on a Sunday.
I have no desire to deal further with some of the inconsistencies which have been expressed in this debate. I know that hon. Members wish to express their opinions—

Mr. G. Thomas: And to speak.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: —and to speak. But any hon. Member who goes into the Division Lobby against this Bill is saying something that is an insult to the intelligence, dignity and nobility of the people of Wales. He will be seeking to deny them the right to decide for themselves what shall be the position of Wales so far as it is affected by Clause 6. The issue is not the question of teetotalism or alcoholism or a question of the brewers versus the Churches. Deeply rooted in Clause 6 is not a moral, spiritual or religious question. It is a constitutional question, a question of civil rights.
Thanks to the resistance of the Minister and the Solicitor-General, this Clause has been preserved to enable Welshmen, for the first time in their lives, to raise themselves from the status of second-class citizens as they are today, and to obtain constitutional parity with England. I am sure the Welsh people will be ever grateful to the Minister and the Solicitor-General for this remarkable service of giving them the right to decide for themselves what shall be their way of life in the future.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I am grateful to be called, and I realise the anxiety of the House to reach a decision, but I none the less believe that it is quite wrong for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) to go unanswered. My

hon. Friend is in no position to lecture Nonconformity. He is the last one in this House to speak with authority and knowledge of what happens within the family of Nonconformity. He claims to be a Nonconformist by tradition—though not by conviction, apparently. My hon. Friend referred to the bigotry of the people who belong to the chapels of Wales. I think the House ought to know—I thought that my hon. Friend might have told us—that the Treherbert ward in his own division disowned him on this question. I think he ought to have told the House that.

Mr. Rupert Speir: Why?

Mr. Thomas: Because my hon. Friend purported to speak—

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Mr. Iorwerth Thomas rose—

Mr. Thomas: I shall give way in a moment or two. I promised to speak for only five minutes. I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my sentence. He has been saying thoroughly unjustified things, very rude and undesirable things, about the people who have made in Wales a great contribution to our national life.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: My hon. Friend has said that I ought to have confessed to the House that, because of what I have said on this matter, a certain ward—a group of about half a dozen people—has dissociated itself from my remarks. It was not so much because of what said on this Bill but on other matters connected with religious organisation. The members of the executive committee of my division are in no way protesting against the stand I am making on behalf of the people of Wales.

Mr. Thomas: The truth is that, immediately before the municipal election in my hon. Friend's constituency, the candidate and the local party felt it necessary to disown the attitude he had adopted, and this was stated publicly in the Rhondda Leader.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood) rose—

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Member allow me to get on? I believe that the chapel people of Wales are not alone in their resistance to Clause 6. In the Weekly Argus published in South Wales


last weekend, the whole front page was given up to an article by a licensee who told us that the majority of licensees have been afraid to speak. I will read what is said:
The majority of public house managers and tenants throughout Monmouthshire, and, indeed, Wales as a whole, are against Sunday opening. But they have been afraid to speak out against the proposal to have seven-day drinking in the principality because their employers, the brewers, would view such outbursts with disfavour. Even within their own organisation, the Licensed Victuallers' Association, managers and tenants have not aired their true views because they dare not do so.
It is a very long article, which goes on to say,
Particularly where Socialist M.P.s are concerned, we look to them to better our lot and not put the clock back half a century.
Then there is complaint about having to work seven days a week.
The House knows my attitude, and so do people outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-West (Mr. Callaghan), with whom I am sorry to find myself out of step on this question—

Mr. Crowder: Mr. Crowder rose—

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member is ruining any attempt on my part at making a coherent speech. I wish that he would remain quiet.
I am sorry to find myself out of step with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-West on this question. I respect his sincere views on the matter, as, I trust, he respects mine. None of us in the House is a delegate. Not one of us is expected to go about with his ear to the ground. Not one of us is expected to try to find out majority opinion on any subject. We should for ever be playing for popularity and security if it were otherwise. The duty of every hon. Member of the House is surely to declare what he believes is right for the country. That is our duty. If our constituents do not like it, they will know what to do. But, whether they like it or not, it is our duty to proclaim what we believe is in the best interest of the people.
I end with one word to the Home Secretary, who last weekend addressed the Conservative teachers and deplored the increase in juvenile delinquency. He said that we need moral uplift and more discipline in the family. But the same

Minister is responsible in this Measure for increasing the temptation to the same young people. In my judgment, this Bill is a bad Bill. Clause 6 is a coward's castle which enable Welsh Tories who have not been into the Chamber at all during the Third Reading of the Bill—

Mr. W. G. Morgan: Mr. W. G. Morgan (Denbigh) indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is a National Liberal.

Mr. Morgan: And a Conservative.

Mr. Thomas: As I was saying, Clause 6 is a coward's castle which enables Welsh Tories, who have not been into the Chamber at all during the Third Reading of the Bill and who would not be in the House at all today had they fought the last election on the question of Sunday opening, to hide behind this facade put up by, the Government, pretending that they are letting the Welsh people decide.
We are elected to act for the Welsh people and it is our responsibility. Clause 6 is an abdication from the authority that we ought to assert, and I regret that the Government are pushing the Clause on to the Welsh people.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: We have now arrived at a very late stage in the consideration of what is a Measure of first-class importance, and our deliberations have been greatly facilitated by the courtesy of the two Ministers in charge who are present on the Government Front Bench. They have—at any rate, I believe they have—satisfied those who took part in the debates that, whether or not they agreed with the arguments advanced, they at least took them into consideration and weighed them carefully. We did not always agree with their conclusions. If we always agreed, democracy would come to a sudden and sickening end.
As the Bill emerges—at any rate in my view—it is a Bill that we ought to support. I said on Second Reading that it was my intention to vote for it, and I did so. That is still my intention, and I think that the Bill has been considerably improved. In the short time that I propose to detain the House I will state the reasons which lead me to my view.
The Bill is in three parts. I would put a plus against Part I, a double plus against Part III and a query or a minus against Part II. Part I—(Restaurants and Guest Houses)—I evaluate in this way. I am not so impressed by the tourist consideration, although I have no doubt that tourists would prefer to have a drink with their meals. What impresses me is this. I try to enter into the minds of the many millions of ordinary people in the country. Many millions of them like to have a drink with their meals. I do not, so that I can speak without having to declare any interest. I nearly always take water or lemonade with my meals. This is not a virtue; it is, an idiosyncrasy, but one which I do not share with many millions in the country.
The present position is that the law says to people, "If you go into some restaurants, you may buy a drink. If you go into others you cannot, but even in those others in which you cannot buy a drink you can resort to this ridiculous stratagem. You can turn to one of the waiters or waitresses and, if you can persuade him or her for the time being to act as your agent in that behalf, you can ask him to go out until he finds an off-licence and there, as your agent, buy an alcoholic drink and bring it back to the restaurant. If the restaurant management does not object, you can consume it upon the restaurant table. That has always seemed to me to be a ridiculous situation. Speaking, perhaps, too much as a lawyer, I very much dislike inconsistencies and anomalies in the law which lower it in the public respect.
I ask myself whether it really does very much harm if ordinary people who like to have a glass of beer with their meal have it. That is what Part I of the Bill permits. It does little more than that.
I recognise, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said when speaking in these debates, that the change embodied in Part I may have far-reaching consequences. It may produce the result that every Lyon's teashop will have a licence and be able to serve alcoholic refreshment. Lyon's teashops are well run, they serve solid and substantial meals and they are only to have their licence to serve alcoholic refreshment if

it is served merely as an ancillary to one of the main customary meals consumed by persons sitting at a table or another structure or counter which serves as a table, to use the definition of the Bill.
That seems to me to be a sensible change which accords with the general views of the citizens of this country. It does not seem likely to produce any great evil in its train. In a sense, I suppose, the change which we are making must be regarded to some extent as experimental. It may be that restaurants with licences will proliferate so enormously that some future Parliament will have to reconsider the matter; but I think it unlikely.
What is likely to happen is that in a large number of well-conducted restaurants where a person can get, and where one resorts in order to get, a solid customary meal, to use the language of the Bill, Which one proposes to consume sitting down on a chair at a table or another structure which serves as a table, one may have an alcoholic drink with it. I do not believe that if we make that change, we will be doing any harm. On the contrary, we will be doing this good. We will prevent the law from requiring recourse to these rather absurd stratagems, as I call them, to produce the sensible result that the normal citizen can have a drink with his meal. Therefore, I would put in plus against Part I of the Bill.
I put a query or a minus against Part II. My reason is that I do not think it has been established in the course of our discussions that there is any real public desire for an extension of the permitted hours. If I felt that it had been shown that people wanted drinking hours to be longer than they are, I would think that that Part also was a Part which should have a plus put against it, but it is very much open to question whether that is the case.
A number of our fellow citizens will be seriously disadvantaged by the proposed change. I refer to those who have to administer that part of the law, the licensees and those who work in licensed premises. It has been pointed out over and over again that considerable hardship may be imposed upon them owing to the lengthening of the hours.
I have already expressed my view on Clause 6 on Second Reading and I will


not run the risk of expressing it again in this debate. All I would say about it is that we owe to Clause 6 a considerable debt in having had the advantage of the two remarkable speeches to which we listened from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who replied to him. That was a valuable addition to our debate. That is all I would like to say about Clause 6, except to hark back to the fact that I said at an earlier stage what I thought about it without qualification.
I pass on to Part III, against which I put a double-plus. It would be unthinkable to allow disreputable clubs to go on—clubs in which we find shifty-eyed individuals engaged in luring young gentlemen with sideboards, drain-pipe trousers and unwholesome complexions into their insanitary basements and dousing them with alcohol while the young men concert violent plans to replace from other people's pockets the money that is being removed from theirs. That state of affairs cannot go on.
During Second Reading, and in Committee and on Report, it was pointed out that Part III, with its stringent and necessary provisions, perhaps went too far. The Minister of State and the Solicitor-General paid heed to the apprehensions expressed and have responded to them. The changes they have introduced in order to make it unnecessary for reputable clubs to keep going to the courts, and, in particular, the change they have made in relation to working-men's clubs—exonerating them from police inspection if they have been in existence at the time of the passing of the Bill for three years—and other similar changes which it would be supererogatory to enumerate now, have very considerably alleviated the position in the case of the respectable clubs. The heavy burden that remains on the shifty-eyed managers of disreputable clubs remains, and I hope that nothing will prevail upon Ministers in another place in any way to alleviate that burden.
These are the things which lead me to the conclusion that this Bill, on balance, is a good Bill and should certainly be supported. I differ from many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are also to support it, in that they have

hesitations and I have none. I believe that the good in the Bill easily outweighs the evil. It would be few Bills which, dealing with such a highly controversial subject as the consumption of alcoholic liquor, could pass the test of being altogether good.
This is a matter on which there are the most conscientious differences held and, if I may refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I think he put his point of view with an intensity and sincerity which is of the greatest value in the annals of this House. I am sorry that some hon. Members used, in somewhat contemptuous terms, the expression "teetotal lobby." I do not know on which side I would stand. I favour people having more facilities to drink, but I never, or rarely, drink myself. The term is a bad one, and I do not think that those who are anxious about the evil effects of intemperate consumption of liquor should be open to criticism because they watch carefully and with suspicion any extension of drinking facilities.
Their contributions which have animated our debates showed the utmost sincerity and are of extreme value. I have a different approach and differ in my conclusions, but their point of view is entitled to respect and they should not be referred to in contemptuous terms.
I hope I have at not unnecessary length explained the reasons why I shall follow the course I have followed throughout the proceedings on this Bill, and support it as a useful social change.

10.54 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): Whatever views right hon. and hon. Members may have about this Bill—and they differ sharply—they will be united in one matter, that is, the almost unexampled way, in modern times, in which the Bill has been shaped by the House of Commons. One could see that in the difference of approach of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) as measured by his Second Reading speech and by the speech to which we have just listened. It seems to me that, whereas on Second Reading he was very wary in his commendation of the Bill, on this occasion he was much warmer. The reason for


that is that from all quarters of the Committee and the House there have been modifications of the Bill—leaving its main structure untouched, but nevertheless effecting very substantial changes and improvements in detail.
On behalf of my right hon. Friends I must acknowledge a particular debt of gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), who were the main spokesmen from the benches opposite in Committee and on Report, for the unfailingly constructive approach which they brought to our proceedings.
It would be very ungenerous if I did not mention particularly the conduct of those right hon. and hon. Members who differed very sharply from our approach to this problem. I mention only the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), but there were many others. There is no question but that they felt, and fell strongly, not merely that we were taking an inexpedient course, but that what we were doing was wrong. That made us all the more grateful that with all their fervour they never changed for a moment from unfailing courtesy to us in the conduct of the debates, and for that we are really profoundly grateful.
I say that they felt that this Bill was wrong. But there is another view, the view of those who support the Bill, which I suggest has a respectable moral lineage. I do not speak only of the views of enlightened pagans like Horace and Omar. There are Christians like Izaak Walton living a decent quiet life. There are great moralists like the Prophet Isaiah, who spoke of the House of Israel as a vineyard in which the Lord had put a winepress. That view is also entitled to moral respect.
What is more, I believe that it is the overwhelming opinion of the people of this country. I believe that the overwhelming opinion of the people is that drinking in moderation is a harmless pleasure, and that what gives harmless pleasure to human beings is to be welcomed and not despised. Of course, it can be abused, but so can any beneficent thing. Drinking as an anodyne of squalor and misery is likely to increase squalor and misery; and it

may be necessary in circumstances of that sort to institute a measure of control, whether it is an individual or a community that is concerned. But surely where the conditions improve control ought to be relaxed.
When the right hon. Member for Colne Valley asks for the reasons for this Bill, we answer unhesitatingly that the social conditions are vastly changed from those which made our existing licensing laws seem desirable, and that we ought in this day and in the changed conditions to see how we can enlarge people's freedom. That is not a matter for which we need apologise for a moment. We need not apologise for rendering to the ordinary citizens the right to make decisions affecting their lives and conduct, instead of arrogating to ourselves the right to make those decisions.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not quarrel with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but my point was that with the coming of the motor cat the conditions had altered so much that we looked to the Government to do something to settle, if they could, this problem of drinking, and facilities for drinking, and driving a car on the roads as they exist today.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman need not fear. I was going to deal with that paint of his as well.
Before I come to the general matters there are two specific matters with which I think that I ought to deal. One, as was said by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, is of great importance, since it affects the life of a nation. That is the matter raised in Clause 6. That is not a matter on which any licensing Bill could be silent. Among other things, we are amending the 1953 Act and that re-enacts the 1881 Statute. Therefore, it would have been open for any hon. Member to have put down an Amendment dealing with drinking on Sunday in Wales and it would have been quite impossible for the Government under those circumstances not to have a policy and not to embody it in the Bill.
There are quite clearly two views in Wales and both have been expressed with great eloquence. There is, for example, the view of the right hon. Member for Llanelly, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts)


and others, on the one hand. But there is also the view which was strongly expressed by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas). It is the fact that obviously a great many people in Wales express their own view on Sunday drinking in Wales by going in their great numbers—to put it in quite a neutral fashion—to the clubs. Therefore, I say that there are two views, and the question was how those views should be given expression.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the democracy which the people of his valleys have built up—a striking phrase in a striking speech. But this is a democratic expedient. Surely it is democracy to give to the people the power themselves to influence decisions which affect their lives. That is what this Clause does, as the hon. Member for Rhondda, West pointed out; and it was the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan).
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that Wales was not consulted and that this was flouting a nation. How can one use that sort of language in view of the fact that this very Clause provides for consultation with the people of Wales? The right hon. Gentleman said that the people for whom he spoke might be a minority, but they should be respected. Surely that is so, for Clause 6 provides that every administrative county and county borough shall speak independently and make its own views heard. Again, it seems to me that we have no need to apologise in any way for Clause 6, for the reasons given by hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Welsh constituencies, the hon. Members for Rhondda, West, and Cardiff, South-East. We are not imposing our views as a United Kingdom Parliament, nor the view of the Welsh Members, on the people of Wales. We are letting the people speak for themselves on this issue.
The other matter about which I should say a word is Carlisle. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) asked me to deal with that question. Clause 4 (4) has the effect that the whole of the sale of liquor under a restaurant or residential licence in Carlisle will not require the authority of the Secretary of State. In other words, there will be no difference between Carlisle and the

rest of the country regarding these licences. The second effect of the Bill on the Carlisle scheme is that under Clause 21 (5) a club which obtains a registration certificate under Part III will not require the additional authority of the Secretary of State for the supply of liquor. In other words, all clubs are cleared from the Home Secretary's veto.
We have been glad to meet the points put by my hon. Friend in making those provisions; they are quite consistent with the general philosophy of the Bill. To have gone further, as he pressed us to do, would have involved fundamental alterations in the present conception of State management which, whatever view one forms of that issue, would have taken us far beyond the scope and intention of the Bill. I gather from the earlier exchanges that it would be out of order for me to answer the further questions which my hon. Friend put.

Dr. D. Johnson: May I correct my right hon. and learned Friend? I did not press him on this matter during the course of the Bill. Would he make that clear?

The Solicitor-General: I gladly accept what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that I need say more about Part III. Particularly since it has been modified in Committee and on Report, and in the light of the further assurance which we have given about Amendments which we propose to make in another place, I think that it commands universal approbation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It seems to have commanded it in today's debate.

Mr. Ede: No.

The Solicitor-General: I do not want to provoke the right hon. Gentleman into making a speech. Let me content myself with saying that I do not propose at this late hour to deal with Part III, except in so far as it relates to young people.
I turn to the liberalising provisions of the Bill. As far as I can see, only two reasons have been put forward why we should not enlarge people's freedom in this manner. The first relates to young people. It is said, truly, that in recent years offences of drunkenness among young people have increased; but, as my right hon. Friend said, one must look at the Bill as a whole, and, first, the Bill says for the first time that


it is an offence for a young person to buy or consume alcoholic liquor in on-licensed premises; secondly, it sharply steps up the penalties for the offence of selling or supplying liquor to young people; thirdly, we have given an undertaking in relation to the sale from off-licensed premises to young people; and fourthly, I put it to the objectors that Part I provides any young person, as other people, with an alternative outlet if he wishes to drink. He can eat and drink at the same time; and, as the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) put it in Committee, that is a civilised pastime. In addition, we are legislating in the Bill, and we have to legislate in the Bill, for adults as well as for juveniles.
The second argument against the liberalising provisions of the Bill relates to the seriousness of road accidents and the undoubted fact that the excessive consumption of alcohol will lead to road accidents if the person who has drunk too much then drives his car. That is a serious problem. But if some people abuse their liberty by drinking in excess and then driving, the proper place to deal with it is in a Road Traffic Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it? "] That goes beyond my compass, but I say this very seriously. In a Road Traffic Bill we can ensure that the remedy impinges

only on drivers who drink to excess and not on the whole community.

As those are the only two arguments which are put forward in favour of restricting people's liberty to make up their minds, so far as we can properly permit it, on a matter which so intimately concerns their own affair, we are glad and proud to be putting forward the liberalising provisions of the Bill. It is far too late to rehearse them all, but they are very extensive and my right hon. Friend indicated some of them in his opening speech. At the beginning of my speech I mentioned Horace. It is not fashionable nowadays to quote Latin, and I do not propose to do so, even if I could. There is the great ode in which he celebrated the fall of Cleopatra. It starts with the words:
Now is the time to drink.
Even if we rested there, that would be an epigraph to the Bill of which we need not be ashamed; but he goes on to say:
Now is the time to stamp the floor with the feet of freedom.
It is in that spirit that we commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 56.

Division No. 217.]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Aitken, W. T.
Critchley, Julian
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Allason, James
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hastings, Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bacon, Miss Alice
Curran, Charles
Hiley, Joseph


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barter, John
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Batsford, Brian
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hocking, Philip N.


Berkeley, Humphry
Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, Charles
Hollingworth, John


Bossom, Clive
Driberg, Tom
Holt, Arthur


Bourne-Arton, A.
du Cann, Edward
Hopkins, Alan


Box, Donald
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Braine, Bernard
Eden, John
Houghton, Douglas


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Caerphilly)
Howard, Hon, G. R. (St. Ives)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle upon-Tyne, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Emery, Peter
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Farr, John
Hughes Young, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Finlay, Graeme
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Buck, Antony
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bullard, Denys
Fletcher, Eric
Iremonger, T. L.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Callaghan, James
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Jackson, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Cower, Raymond
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Channon, H. P. G.
Green, Alan
Joseph, Sir Keith


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth. W.)
Crimson, Sir Robert
Kitson, Timothy


Cleaver, Leonard
Gurden, Harold
Langford-Holt, J.


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Leather, E. H. C.


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough
Leavey, J. A.


Garfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Coulson, I. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)




Lindsay, Martin
Pott, Percival
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Longbottom, Charles
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Loveys, Walter H.
Prior, J. M. L.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


McLaren, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marten, Neil
Rawlinson, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Hugh
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Denis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mills, Stratton
Renton, David
Walder, David


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker, Peter


Morgan, William
Roots, William
Webster, David


Morrison, John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Noble, Michael
Seymour, Leslie
Whitelaw, William


Oliver, G. H.
Shaw, M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Parker, John
Smithers, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woollam, John


Peel, John
Speir, Rupert
Worsley, Marcus


Percival. Ian
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Storey, Sir Samuel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Pitt, Miss Edith
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ainsley, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Awbery, Stan
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexheam)
Spriggs, Leslie


Black, Sir Cyril
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Blyton, William
Kelley, Richard
Stones, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Milne, Edward J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert
Neal, Harold
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fernyhough, E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Finch, Harold
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood. Anthony
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Wakins and Mr. Hilton.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Short, Edward

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND COMPENSATION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FACTORIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

11.22 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: As this is a consolidation Measure, I propose, with the leave of the Committee, to put the Clauses in blocks.

Clauses 1 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 80 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Clauses 133 to 185 stand part of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): On a point of order, Sir William, I do not think that there is a Clause 185.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that there is. I find myself at variance with the Solicitor-General. I am, at the moment, reading Clause 185. If I may read it to the Committee:
(1) This Act may be cited as the Factories Act, 1961.
(2) This Act shall come into force on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-two.


(3) This Act, except subsections (1) and (2) of section seventy-seven and so much of section one hundred and eighty-three and the Seventh Schedule as repeals the provisions replaced by those subsections, does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Surely that is, in fact, a Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I apologise, Sir William. I was looking at an earlier print of the Bill before it was further amended.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am much relieved to be able to accept the Solicitor-General's apology.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules I to 7 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS (CONDITIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.25 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: I must express my regret at having to detain for a further half hour my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, after what I am sure has been for him a long and tiring day. But I am glad to have the opportunity of raising with my right hon. Friend the question of conditions in Her Majesty's prisons. This is a matter of grave and increasing concern both to Members of this House and to the general public, as almost every day reports reach us of acts of violence by prisoners in one or other of the prisons involving injury or even death to prison officers or other prisoners, and order and discipline would appear to be increasingly breaking down.
Much light was cast on a fantastic and alarming state of affairs by various speakers at the recent annual conference at Durham of the Prison Officers' Association. I have endeavoured to classify under a few headings what seem from the conference reports to have been the main criticisms. I will now come to these and I shall, of course, in the main have to depend upon the reported

words of speakers to make my points. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to have the opportunity of allaying, if he can, some of the worst of the fears that have been aroused by the conference reports.
The main criticisms at the conference can, I think, be summarised under four main headings. First, there were serious allegations of danger to women welfare officers in the existing conditions in which they work in prisons. Delegates at the conference were told of some welfare officers walking round security prisons with pass and cell keys. Delegates demanded that this be stopped because of the
obvious dangers to the ladies and security
Warders told of their fears of assaults on the women and the dangerous consequences to staff because of this "weak link" in the security system. It was disclosed that at Dartmoor a woman taking a class was indecently assaulted.
The Wandsworth delegate, talking of the women welfare officers there, said:
In C wing at any one time the lady can be half a mile away from any patrol and if anything happened it would be too late to assist her. The lady has now got herself two lady typists. They parade through the prison passing the queue for governor's appointments sometimes numbering 85 men. The job of maintaining discipline is becoming more difficult every day with these ladies going about their ordinary jobs.
Another delegate said:
At Liverpool women interviewed men in cells. It is not hard to imagine the conduct in the cells as she walks along the landing There is a distinct possibility of this lady being subject to a sexual assault.
Secondly, there were strong and critical references to what I think could fairly be described from reading the conference reports as the belief at the conference in the failure and futility of psychiatry as a substitute for rigorous conditions and stern discipline. The Association's chairman criticised the modern trend of sociology, psychiatry, psychology and other special spheres introduced in prisons. He asked when the warders might
expect to see some tangible results from these new and modern methods.
The Broadmoor delegate at the conference said that reform experiments were undermining discipline. The situation in


which a prisoner's ego was more important than anything else was wrong. The Home Secretary was, rather irreverently and unkindly, I think, likened by one delegate to the Fairy Queen. A representative from Brixton said that prison today was like a pantomime, year in and year out, with an ever-increasing cast. The prisoners were
babes in the wood, with psychologists, psychiatrists and others trying to be friendly trees for the babes to hide behind regardless of their crimes.
He said that the shortage of staff was not the sole reason for the present situation, adding:
we, the prison staff, are in our time-honoured rôle of wicked warder, and we have the Home Secretary as Fairy Queen. Flying high from the ground with his tarnished tinsel and drooping wand, he presumably believes—as all good fairies should—that all will come right in the end.
The whole system of the past few years had been a complete failure, with rising crime, especially violence. The "babes," these days, he said, had "never had it so good," adding:
Their ever-increasing privileges, which most prisoners now regard as their rights, mean that the wicked warders are on duty two or three evenings when they should be at home resting for the next performance. Of course we need more officers, but let the Home Secretary shed the wings of Fairy Queen and come back to earth. Let him exchange his drooping wand for a birch and play the rôle of wicked uncle for a while. Maybe, then these babes would think twice before then violence inside and outside prisons.
That may be exaggerated language, and many hon. Members will, perhaps, find themselves somewhat out of sympathy with that mode of expression. But it does at any rate indicate a great feeling of exasperation and almost of despair on the part, at any rate, of some of these men on whose services we depend for the maintenance of order in the prisons.
The third point made at the conference by several delegates related to the wave of violence and insubordination sweeping through the prisons which, it was suggested, seemed to be daily increasing and must be checked. A delegate from Pentonville said that during the twelve months there had been twenty-nine attacks on warders. In no case had corporal punishment been administered to offenders. He said:
Prisoners afraid of mobs and strong-arm men take more notice of them than of the staff…During a recent incident when

men stood still in the exercise yard, they ignored orders from the Governor and principal officers, but continued walking when a prisoner gave the order to move on.
The delegate from Broadmoor described the situation at Broadmoor as "alarming". He said that, recently, 10 per cent. of the female staff were off duty and receiving Industrial Injury benefits as a result of assaults.
The general secretary of the Association, summing up, said:
These violent people ought to be properly disciplined in a place of their own. This experiment at Brixton is not going to work because these fellows will come into contact with other prisoners at chapel and elsewhere and there will be acts of bravado".
Fourthly, a good deal was said at the conference as to the difficulties and unsatisfactory conditions being, at any rate in considerable measure, due as a result of the shortage of staff in the prisons. The results of staff shortages were indicated by several delegates. One from Pentonville Prison pointed out that in the past year there had been no less than 667 recalls to the prison of off-duty officers and that free time in compensation had been non-existent for five years.
Another delegate explained that there was a similar situation at borstal institutions. Frequently only one officer was in charge of eighty inmates for long periods. Delegates spoke of the peril that might strike at any moment in understaffed prisons. Murders could be done without anyone knowing what had happened, it was said.
I am quite certain that no one in this House and no one in the country wishes the over-severe conditions of the last century to return to our prisons. But while that may be the case, I believe that the Home Secretary would be supported by a big majority of Members of the House and of members of the public in restoring a stricter and more severe régime in dealing with wrongdoers.
Both in and out of prison, many people believe that it is right and necessary that the way of transgressors should be hard, that the maintenance of public order is more important that the pampering of wrongdoers and that sympathy for the victim is more important than too much softness in dealing with the offender. A more vigorous régime in the prisons would be applauded by the many and criticised by the few.
Before I sit down, I must, I think, make this point, that necessarily Members of this House and members of the public are dependent for information about conditions in the prisons on reports from people like prison officers.

Miss Alice Bacon: The hon. Gentleman has read out to us the reports of speeches that we all read in the papers about a fortnight ago, and I think that he is just going on to say that hon. Members are dependent on reports in newspapers. That, of course, is not so. Perhaps he would tell us which prisons he has visited lately.

Sir C. Black: I have visited prisons in the past. I have not visited any prisons recently, but I still maintain my point, that for information as to what the conditions are one must necessarily rely more upon information obtained from people who work in the prisons and spend their lives there, people who are there day after day, week after week and month after month, than upon information which hon. Members could obtain if they had the time and the opportunity to make very infrequent and very fleeting visits to prisons.
I was about to conclude by saying that it may be that these reports are greatly exaggerated. It may well be that in these reports things have been said which my right hon. Friend will be able to deny, and that, in so far as facts can be given, he may be able to allay the apprehensions of the public aroused by reports of this kind. To that extent, I am quite certain that this debate will have served a useful purpose.
I have deliberately kept my remarks as short as I possibly could because I wanted to give my right hon. Friend as long as possible in which to tell us something about these reports and how far they can be regarded as being reliable.

11.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) need not apologise for keeping me up, because I am indeed glad to have the chance of answering this debate today. As, I think, my hon. Friend realises, it gives me the opportunity of putting into perspective some of the rather exaggerated stories which have

been circulating recently about prison conditions.
My hon. Friend has, I know, been to conferences. He knows that some excitable things are said there and that somewhat exaggerated reports appear as a result of those excitable remarks. Much of what my hon. Friend has spoken about falls into that category. Last week, however, my hon. Friend may have read in the Economist, a paper which is not normally given to sensational reports, an article on prisons which said that our prisons were antiquated, overcrowded and understaffed.
I say straight away that that is not untrue, provided it is remembered that vigorous action has been taken, and is being taken, to overcome these deficiencies. In the first place, our prisons are antiquated because nearly all of them—and my hon. Friend said that in the past he had visited some—date from Victorian times. Like so many of our institutions, schools, hospitals, and so on, they do not measure up to the requirements of the second half of this century. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend would again visit one of these institutions, as I should like him to do, particularly one of the local prisons, I think that he would be pleasantly surprised to see what can be done with an old building. In most of our prisons, work is in hand to try to make the best out of what is on many occasions admittedly a bad job.
Secondly, our prisons are overcrowded because the population of Her Majesty's penal establishments stands at over 29,000, which is a record figure. It has been rising at the stupendous rate of about 500 prisoners every three months for the past eighteen months. That means that a new prison is needed every three months to cope with the additional numbers.
Thirdly, the prisons are understaffed because, although there has been a 26 per cent. rise in staff—I should like that to be noted—in the last five years, it has, like so many professions, been insufficient to cope with the increase in population. I have in mind, for example, the teaching profession. The staffing ratio in prisons has fallen from 1:4·6 in 1956 to 1:5·1 today.
Despite these disquieting trends, however, I should like to refute any suggestion—and there have been some


suggestions in recent weeks—that prison discipline is in danger of breaking down. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor the Prison Commission is of this opinion. During the last eighteen months I have visited—I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), who is attending this debate, has done likewise—some thirty of these establishments, or more than one-third of the total, and I have discussed the position with governors and with the staff at all levels. I cannot detect any substance in the suggestion that despite the difficult conditions, the situation is not under complete control or that staff morale generally is low.
The staff of the prison service are doing a fine job, often under great strain, and I should like to pay tribute to their efforts. I am anxious that a false picture is not created. This could only have the effect of discouraging applicants for the service, thus rendering the task of those in the service unnecessarily difficult.
In recent weeks there have been incidents in several prisons arising from a number of different reasons, perhaps the most important of which is that the prisoners read the newspapers and know what is happening elsewhere in other prisons. But there is no reason—and I have gone into this carefully—to believe that these incidents are symptoms of a deep unrest.
My hon. Friend referred in particular to the reports of the prison officers' conference at Durham, but in my many visits I have been much impressed by the calibre of those who serve the Prison Commission. They are a fine body of men. Nevertheless, as we all know from our experience at conferences, it is so often the sensational speech which hits the headlines and often the rebel who attracts the interest. Whilst I realise that officers are working under great difficulties—no one denies that—my personal experiences do not support the impressions created by some of the speeches to which my hon. Friend has referred.
One speaker—I think that my hon. Friend had this one in mind—took the theme that life in prison today was one non-stop pantomime. I realise that not everyone, including prison officers, supports the positive approach which is

adopted in our prisons today, but I should make it quite clear that the reformative aspects of prison treatment are not soft measures designed merely to sweeten the passage of time or to make compensation for a man being in prison. They all have a constructive purpose which, we think, will eventually benefit not only the individual prisoner, but society as a whole, because it might help him to go straight and not come back, I have no doubt that many prison officers accept this not only as a matter of duty but from personal conviction.
My hon. Friend seemed to suggest that we should have a stricter régime. My experience is that the régime is very strict. Our aims in prison treatment are to maintain security and good order, to maintain and, if necessary, improve, physical health, and to train the inmates to lead an holiest and useful life on discharge. We have to try to teach the prisoner to work, think and face his responsibilities as a grown member of society. This is not done by making the prisoners comply with a simple routine of monotonous work, but by providing constructive training enabling the prisoner to develop a sense of responsibility.
We must, therefore, obviously give him some chance to exercise selection and some variety of choice must be available to him. We must also, if we are to train the prisoner to get along in a free society, give him opportunities to play his part in the society of the prison itself through communal activities of various kinds and opportunities of service to the community. I mention this because this is one of the aims of our prison regime. It is a necessary part of a constructive and progressive policy and can well be associated with the deterrent effect of prison life.
I believe that this is what the speaker had in mind when he spoke of a "pantomime". This is not pantomime but a serious effort to use the time available when a man is deprived of liberty to do as much as possible to re-establish him in society and to prevent his return to prison. Of course, this task is made immensely more difficult by the size of the prison population and is particularly difficult in many of the overcrowded local prisons.
I am glad to say, however, that we are making considerable progress with


our building programme, which now provides for no less than forty new establishments. That will be approximately a 50 per cent. rise on what we have now. Seven of these are in operation, sixteen are under construction, while seventeen are still in various stages of planning. This programme will include at least eight new closed training prisons for men, and, following the Criminal Justice Bill, will provide for the separation of young offenders from the old and for the provision of remand centres.
Whilst it can be argued—and this was argued in part at Durham—that we should not open these new establishments until we get more staff, we obviously cannot improve conditions in existing establishments until we get the new ones, and therefore, all our efforts depend equally on the provision of new establishments and upon more staff.
Having spoken briefly about buildings, I turn now to staffing, which is no doubt the most important element in the service. As I have said, there has been a steady increase in staff, rising from 4,363 in 1956 to 5,506 today. But there was a depressing period towards the end of last year, and at the moment we are about 140 officers short of the present authorised strength, and also, of course, we need more staff to meet the demands of the new establishments. My right hon. Friend—and I emphasise this—attaches the highest priority to this matter of recruiting more staff.
High standards are obviously very necessary for the service, and this means that only a small proportion of the applicants can be accepted. The service is very selective. My impression is that the job offers a satisfying career for men and women of high integrity, as well as—odd though it may sound—a post of great security.
Pay for the prison staff was improved at the beginning of this year by 9 per cent., and today the starting pay of prison officers is £10 16s. 6d. per week. In addition, there is free accommodation and uniform, or allowances to cover these.
Overtime, of which there may well be too much, but I think that that is a matter for dispute, is paid at generous rates.

Three weeks' annual leave with full pay is given to the new officer—with more leave for the established officer, of course—and officers may retire at the fairly early age of 55 with very advantageous pension terms.
For the 5,506 officers, about 4,710 married quarters are available, 300 more are in the course of construction, and more still will be provided. Housing in a service like this is of the utmost importance, and I admit that in one of two prisons it causes us some problems.
I mention this because it is not always realised that the facilities available to the prison officer are very good indeed, and they must be so because of the restricted life he is forced to lead and because of the inconvenient hours he is requested to work.
I am particularly glad to be able to reply to this debate, because we are at present engaged in a recruiting campaign. A few weeks ago we had a test campaign of display advertising in the North of England—principally in the North-West, but a little in the North-East. We have received a large number of applications which are at present under consideration.
It will be the concern of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Prison Commission to endeavour in every possible way to attract officers to the service, because upon these depend the conditions of those officers already in the service as well as the development and maintenance of the prisoners themselves.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of attacks on officers. These are to be regretted, but in fact there has been a slight decrease in the number of attacks on officers in 1960 compared with 1959, despite the rise in prison population during this period. I cannot understand my hon. Friend's reference to twenty-nine attacks for which no award of corporal punishment was made. Corporal punishment in prison is awarded only for gross personal violence, for mutiny, or for incitement to mutiny. It may well be that the offences he has in mind were not offences of gross personal violence, but this is a matter which is often under discussion, and in fact my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed more awards of corporal punishment this year and last year


than in previous years. This year three awards have been made, and all have been confirmed. Last year eight awards were made, and five were confirmed.
My hon. Friend referred to a woman welfare officer. I have met this lady. Neither she nor the Governor share the views expressed at the conference. In fact, following this remark the prisoners presented her with a bouquet of flowers.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's reasons for raising this debate, but I hope he will share my view that we should persevere with the progressive methods adopted in our prisons today, which must bring dividends to us all. We are backing this with an extensive programme of building—the largest this country has known for over a century.
I fully accept that the burden of success—and I think that this is in my hon. Friend's mind—rests on the staff, and we will adopt any reasonable measures

leading to an increase in their numbers. As I have said, we are engaged upon a recruiting campaign.
The picture that I should like my hon. Friend to have is one of great pressure, but not one of crisis; it is one of expansion and not one of complacency of despair.

Miss Bacon: This is an important subject, and one with which we cannot adequately deal in a half-hour Adjournment debate.
I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman give details of the buildings—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adojurned at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.